APHC010032642021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2278/2021 Between: Smt R Munisujana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent bearing Procs.No.34/A/2020, dated 01.01.2021 appointing the 4th respondent as Anganwadi centre, Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapuramu district, though the petitioner is more eligible than the 4th respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for selection to the post of Anganwadi worker…..” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent authorities have issued a notification in Eenadu and Saakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper on 12.12.2020 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Bodayapalli village of Tadipatri Mandal, Ananthapuram district. As per the notification, the minimum qualification required is 10th class, while the petitioner possessed degree qualification. The petitioner has submitted application for the post of Anganwadi worker and received call letter for interview vide Rc.No.33/CDO/2020, dated 23.12.2020. Accordingly, the petitioner attended for interview on 29.12.2020 along with original education qualification certificates. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent without verifying the qualification and the eligible criteria, appointed the 4th respondent as Anganwadi worker vide Procs.No.34/A/2020, dated 01.01.2021. Hence, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 04.01.2021 to the 2nd respondent and brought to his notice about the illegality committed by the 3rd respondent in process of selection of Anganwadi worker post, but the petitioner informed that already the 4th respondent was selected as Anganwadi worker and expressed their inability to take any action. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying certain allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the 4th respondent secured 66 points in total, whereas the petitioner secured only 59 3 points and the petitioner has no right of finding fault with assessment of the Committee of the multiple committee Members. It is further contended that the post of Anganwadi worker requires only minimum qualifications of 10th class and not a graduate or a post graduate and such higher qualifications is not necessary, as there is every scope of such people leaving the job of Anganwadi worker in the event of their securing a job suitable to their qualifications and so the selections are based on the minimum qualifications of 10th class. Hence, the appointment of the 4th respondent is valid. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent for the political influence exerted by the 4th respondent. The petitioner secured first rank with 421 marks in SSC, and also completed Intermediate and later acquired B.Sc degree qualification from Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapur. Whereas, the 4th respondent secured 342 marks in SCC and passed Intermediate compartmentally and viewed from any angle, the petitioner is more qualified than the 4th respondent. He further submits that the 3rd respondent ought to have followed 4 the guidelines prescribed by the government before finalizing the merit list, but without doing so, appointed the 4th respondent for extraneous considerations. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the writ petition, submits that, the 3rd respondent appointed the 4th respondent without verifying the qualifications of the petitioner and her eligible criteria and appointing the 4th respondent on some political influence is incorrect. He further submits that the 3rd respondent has followed all the guidelines prescribed by the government, while appointing the 4th respondent as Anganwadi Worker. He further submits that the selection of the 4th respondent is done by Selection Committee consisting of five officers and the District Collector as Chairman of the Selection Committee. He further submits that the present writ petition is frivolous and vexatious without carefully minding the circumstances on which the 4th respondent is chosen for the post. Hence, there is no unjust, or unconstitutionality in the selections and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the record. 8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court further observed that, the criteria for the AWW post’s selection awarded at the time of interview by the Members of Selection Committee, according to G.O.Ms.No.18 5 WDCW & DW, ICDS dated 15.05.2015, the Government has also issued certain parameters for adopting by the Selection Committee for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers. The statement reads as under: S.No. Parameters Marks 1 Marks secured in X Class examination 50 2 Pre- Pre-School teacher training or creshe and Pre- School management training conducted by the Board of intermediate or recongized University/working as ECE Workers 10 3 (a) Widow (b) Widow with minor children (additional) 5 5 4 Candidate who is a complete orphan and who has been an inmate of crèche and Home or Govt. Institutions on the Certificate of good conduct and character 10 5 Differently abled candidates 5 6 Oral Interview 15 Total 100 9. On a perusal of the above, the criteria for the AWW Post selection is only 10th Class Pass. So, the petitioner has already passed 10th Class and applied for the said post. Moreover, as seen from the Eligibility List for the post of Anganwadi Worker, it is seen that the 4th respondent secured 66 marks in total, whereas the petitioner has secured only 59 marks. 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, without taking into consideration of the certificates possessed by the petitioner and her marks, the respondents have appointed the 4th respondent as Anganwadi Worker, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, for substantiating the evidence of petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the documents shown that the petitioner possessed qualifications, 6 but on a perusal of the above, it clearly shows that oral interview marks are not added. Whereas, the respondents have filed counter affidavit, which includes the oral interview marks for the participants. 11. Therefore, as seen from the counter, it is observed that, after adding Oral interview marks, the petitioner herein got total marks ‘59’ and the 4th respondent got total marks ‘66’ and therefore, as per the contention of the respondents, basing on the total marks, the 3rd respondent had appointed the 4th respondent, who got highest marks. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion and on perusing the material on record, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 24-01-2025 BMS