1 APHC010714972018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 34654/2018 Between: Chandaka Swathi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP) 2. SUDHIR MATTEGUNTA The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 34654 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the impugned action of the respondents No 2 to 5 in selecting and appointing the 6th respondent as Anganwadi Worker of Jammupeta Anganwadi Center-1, Gurla Mandal, Nellimarla ICDS project, Vizianagaram District as arbitrary, illegal, improper and contrary to the procedure prescribed in awarding marks and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi worker of Jammupeta Anganwadi Center-I, Jammupeta village, Gurla Mandal, Nellimarla ICDS project, Vizianagaram District by awarding 5 marks for holding certificate in Diploma in education and to grant…” 2. Heard Ms. Taddi Sowmya Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare and Sri M. Sudhir, learned Counsel for the respondent No.6. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is Diploma holder in Education. She was not awarded correct marks in the interview, so, she could not secure her employment as Anganwadi Worker. Learned counsel would further submit that though the respondent No.6 is less meritorious person, she is selected as Anganwadi Worker. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare, would submit that irrespective of the marks secured in the 10th class, the candidate would get 50 marks and as per the memo, the interview is for 20 marks. The petitioner secured in total 61.80 marks whereas the respondent 3 No.6 secured 65.40 marks. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that as per the parameters in the G.O.Ms.No. 18 dated 15.05.2015, the petitioner could not get 5 marks for holding DED. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, which shows that the respondent No.6 secured 65.40 marks whereas the petitioner secured 61.80 marks. Such being the case, the respondent No.6 is more meritorious than the petitioner and got her employment as Anganwadi Worker. Though the petitioner possessed higher qualification, in the light of the parameters as per the G.O.Ms.No. 18, she could not get any additional marks for her DED qualification. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 08.04.2025 UPS 4 29 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.34654 of 2018 Dated.08.04.2025 UPS