Jalli Mariamma v. The District Collector-cum-Selection Committee
WP/23146/2012 · 2025-01-24
Harinath N
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 36033 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 36033 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010584892012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 23146/2012 Between: Jalli Mariamma ...PETITIONER AND The District Collectorcumselection Committee and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. GEDDAM SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following Order:
The petitioner is challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent as an Anganwadi Worker. Instead of appointing the petitioner, a direction is also sought to receive fresh applications and appoint the petitioner in the place of 3rd respondent. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent on the ground that the 3rd respondent is not a resident of P.Gannavaram Village, and as such, she is not eligible for the appointment.
2. It is submitted that the husband of the 3rd respondent is a Government employee and earning a monthly salary of Rs.38,000/-, and their annual
2
income is around Rs.5,00,000/-. In spite of all this, the official respondents preferred to appoint the 3rd respondent and posted her as an Anganwadi Worker. The appointment of the 3rd respondent is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the 3rd respondent was the only applicant who responded to the notification and submitted all the relevant certificates entitling her to the appointment. It is submitted that the petitioner made no application in response to the notification, and as such, she has no locus to challenge the appointment of the 3rd respondent. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent is continuing in service, and as such, her services did not dislodge the complaint the petitioner has not made any application for an appointment.
4. Recording the same, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N
24.01.2025 PNS