IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH TWO THOUSAND AND amaravati day of marc twenty five 1 / present »0N0u«,au ®imimu!aij!siou«.7 Between; Gurram Vijaya Lakshmi R/o.Jangala Daruvu W/o.Chinna Narasaiah, Sangam Mandal. Nellore District aged about 22 years, -PETITIONER AND of Anganwadi Workers , Nellore. Women Development & 3. R.Pad™,W/o.Snnlvasu.u Reddy, aged about 19 Jangala Daruvu, Sangam Mandal, Nellore District 1. District Selection Committee Nellore District, rep. by Chairman, District Collector 2. i C.D.S. Project officer Child Welfare Workers, Nellore. years. Resident of ...RESPONDENTS praying that in the High Court ma^ particularly one in the of the respondents 1 Petition under Article the circumstances stated i be pleased to i nature of writ of selecting Jangala Daruvu Mandal, Nellore Articles 14,15 appointment of 226 of the Constitutio in the affidavit filed therewith issue an order direction n of India or writ more mandamus deciaringlh^action appointing the 3'^ in and 2 or respondent as Anganwadi worker Buchireddypalem for centre, I.C.D.S Project District ac ill i area, Sangam as Illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of constitution of India and Anganwadi of guidelines relating to workers and consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 aside the the to appoint the petitioner in the said appointment or selection of the 3™ post duly setting respondent. Petition under Section stated in the affidavit pleased to Anganwadi ^^Ol28igOF2^ J 151 CPC praying that in the cicircumstances filed in support of the petition, the High Court Stay the may be appointment worker of the Jangata i.c.D.S Project Buch/redd pending disposal of the Counsel for the Petit,one Counsel for the or selection of the 3''^ respondent as Daruvu Centre, within the operation of Nellore District ypalem area, Sangam Mandal above writ petition. r-' SRI ivi. RavinDRA Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; GP FOR WOMEN development AND C. KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the CHILD WELFARE No.3: SRI CH. following; ORDER APHC010049102007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^'^^TWn twentieth day of march TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY present the honourable SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION! fyjQ. 2201/9007 ilf PRADESH [3332] FIVE RAVI CHEEIVIALAPATI Between: Gurram Vijaya Lakshmi, Nellore District ...PETITIONER AND District Selection Committee Nellore District & 2 others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M RAVINDRA Counsel for the Respondent{S): l.GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE 2.CH C KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following order; Questioning the appointment of for Jangala Daruvu Mandal, Nellore District, the respondent No.3 as Anganwadi worker area, Sangam center ICDS Project, Buchireddypalem present Writ Petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the respondent No.1 for selection notification issued by Jangala Daruvu of Anganwadi worker for centre, ICDS Project, Bucchireddypalem No.3 applied for the said post. They area. The petitioner and respondent were called for interview and accordingly they attended the said interview. Respondent No.3, though not qualified for the said post, was selected by the respondent authorities. A representation respondent Nos.1 & 2 and other officials dated 05.01.2007 was submitted to by the Panchayat members and also the villagers belonging communities about the illegal appointment of respondent No.3. The petitioner also made a representation dated 08.01.2007 to SC and ST to respondent No.1 requesting him to make enquiry into the said illegal appointment and provide her with an opportunity to work as an Anganwadi worker. Questioning the illegal appointment of respondent No.3, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Heard Ms.Mahaswetha, learned counsel learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri representing Sri M.Ravindra, Kanakaraju, learned Government Pleader for official respondents and Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been Stated in the affidavit contended that si community, due to political pressure, since respondent No.3 belongs to O.C respondent Nos.1 and 2 appointed her ganwadi worker. Respondent No.3 is a rich landlady owning more than 40 acres of land and a tractor and accustomed to rich and luxurious life and she cannot discharge the functions of Anganwadi contended that worker. She further respondent No.3 does not possess better educational qualifications than the petitioner. She further submitted that Jangala Daruvu predominantly occupied by the people belonging to SC, ST and BC communities to the extent of 80% and the petitioner has been working several activities relating to upliftment of downtrodden. He further contended that the petitioner, being the SC community lady, work for upliftment of the social oppressed classes and with the said object, applied for the said post, but the respondent authorities have illegally appointed respondent No.3 who is not having better qualifications than her. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. IS in 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 contended that selection process has been done by the District Selection Committee per G.O.Ms.No.28 Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 02.12.2004 and Memo No.11729/K3/2001 29.11.2001. As per the said G.O., the Project Director of the District will i a notification of all the vacancies in the District calling applications from the eligible candidates. The Selection Committee will conduct oral interviews of all eligible candidates and finalize the selected candidates. The Project Director issued appointment orders to the selected candidates through the concerned Child Development Project Officers as per the instructions of the District Collector and the candidates will be sent for job-course training for 56 days before they are placed in Anganwadi workers. He further submitted that the as dated issue petitioner along with '17.12.2006. respondent No.3 and other had Respondent No.3 attended the interview on was selected by the District Selection Committee duly following the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.28, dated that economic background 02.12.2004. He further submitted which had not been spelt out and caste criteria nder the guidelines issued in the said G.O. The not deviated from the respondent authorities have had issued posting orders the District Selection Committee selected respondent No.3 Petition is devoid of merits and guidelines spelt out and had been selected by have rightly to the respondent No.3 who and the respondent authorities and they have not violated the procedure. The Writ prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition 6. Perused the record and counsel for the parties. considered the submissions made by learned 7. It is not in dispute that the attended the interview to the petitioner, respondent No.3 and others had post of Anganwadi worker for Jangala Daruvu centre. ICDS Project, Bucchireddypalem District on 17.12.2006 area, Sangam Mandal, Nellore was selected to the said and respondent No.3 post by The prescribed qualifications for Anganwadi as follows; 1) The worker should be the District Selection Committee. worker as per the Notification in-law and resident of the has to be selected. are dauther- village 2) a lady of age 21-45 years 3) A married In the absence unmarried has to be selected are eligible in the absence of registers and read the books 4) Should pass 10*^ class, 10*^ class failed candidates passed candidates. Have a knowledge of writing 5 5) the candidates selected should be acceptable by all the villagers 6) The candidate should be amicable with all the religious in the village 7) should move with children freely and work for the welfare of children 8) Have the capacity to convince the villagers and make them to participate in the programme 9) Must be in a position to understand the scheme and have patience and commitment to work and should be model to the villagers. 8. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since respondent No.3 belongs to O.C community, due to political pressure respondent Nos.1 and 2 have selected respondent No.3 as Anganwadi worker. In the counter of respondent No.2. it is specifically mentioned that the selection process has been done as per G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 02.12.2004 and Memo issued by the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad vide Memo No.11729/K3/2001, dated 29.11.2001. 9. Perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 02.12.2004 would indicate that basing on the letter issued by Commissioner WD & CW, Lr.No.6932/K3/2003 dated 16.09.2004, it is reported that various representations have been received from Ministers, MLAs, ZPPs Chairman, Local Leaders and also from Project Directors and Regional Deputy Directors of the Women Development & Child Welfare Department that the present system of selection Anganwadi workers and Helpers is suffering from politicization at the root level and after careful examination of gross- the Government reconstituted the committee for selection/recruitment of Anganwadi workers and Helpers in all ICDS projects. The committee consists of the following members: 1. District Collector/Chairperson, DW & CDA - Chairman 2. Local MLA where ICDS project is located - Member 3. DM&HO/Additional DM & HO 4. CDPO of concerned ICDS Project 5. Project Director, DW & CDA. - Member - Member - Member-Convener Perusal of the counter would indicate that respondent appointed by the District Selection Committee consisting of the above said members. No.3 was 10. Perusal of the requisite qualifications mentioned in the Notification for selection of Anganwadi workers, G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 02.12.2004 and the Memo issued by the Director of Women Development & Child Welfare Hyderabad, dated 29.11.2001, there is no rule of reservation as alleged by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no material placed by the petitioner with regard to educational qualifications and other criteria of respondent No.3 to prove the illegal appointment of respondent No.3 as an Anganwadi Worker. A.P. 11. As per the guidelines prescribed in ICDS Manual at page No. 103 of para 5.23, the Anganwadi worker is expected to be a woman in the age group 21-45 years and is to be selected from within the village/local community. She should be a person who is acceptable t*^ the community. Special care has to Fbe taken in the selection of Anganwadi worker so that she can effectively serve the pre-school children, pregnant women and nursing mothers and women in the age group 15-44 years of the project area and she should be able to work with women and children of the scheduled caste and scheduled Tribe and other weaker sections of the community. 1 The material papers filed by the petitioner along with the Writ Affidavit would indicate that one of the requisite qualifications for appointment of Anganwadi worker is that the worker should pass X Class and X class failed candidates are eligible in the absence of passed candidates. Perusal of the Transfer Certificate of the petitioner and the document containing the particulars of the members of the Self-help group shows that petitioner studied upto IX class only. So, she did not possess requisite education qualification. Furthermore, perusal of Sterilization Certificate issued by the Medical Officer dated 14.12.2006 shows that the petitioner is having 11 days male child. A mother with infant child of 11 days cannot effectively do Anganwadi worker duty. The petitioner was called for the interview on 17.12.2006. As per the guidelines prescribed in ICDS manual, special care has to be taken in the selection of Anganwadi worker so that she can effectively serve the pre-school children, pregnant women and nursing mothers. Taking into consideration the educational qualification and the health condition of the petitioner, the District Selection Committee might have rejected the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Anganwadi worker. 12. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the facts and appointment of respondent District Selection Committee any case while questioning the worker. Hence, the Writ circumstances of the No.3 for the case, this Court feels that the post of Anganwadi worker by the not illegal and the petitioner has IS not made out No.3 as Anganwadi appointment of respondent Petition deserves for dismissal. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition iis dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous shall stand closed. petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, / Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1- OneCCtoShM. 2. One CC to Sri Ch. 3. Two CCS to GP for Women of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies. Ravindra, Advocate [OPUCJ C. Krishna Reddy. Advocate [OPUCJ Development and Child Welfare, High Court ssb HIGH COURT DATED;20/03/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.2201 of 2007 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS