APHC010064582021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3920/2021 Between: Smt. Chillem Mallika, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS BASAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAI MANOJ REDDY L 2. GP FOR SERVICES III 3. 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 declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 to 6 in appointing 7th Respondent as Anganwadi Center Worker by order No.1/A12021, dated 01.01.2021 in respect to the notification No.233226, dated 11.12.2020 of 3rd and 4th 2 Respondent without any proper selection criteria in the interview held on 28.12.2020 for Kadiri, East-Ethodu-1 Anganwadi Center as arbitrary, illegal, discriminative, in violation of principles of natural justice, violative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Articles 14 and the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the appointment of 7th Respondent vide by order No.1/A/2021, dated 01.01.2021 and direct the Respondent No.2 to 6 to select candidate in fair and transparent manner again from the applicants to the notification No.233226, dated 11.12.2020 of 3rd Respondent for Kadiri, East-Ethodu-1 Anganwadi Center…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 3rd respondent vide notification No.233226, dated 11.12.2020 has notified 588 post in the District of Ananthapuramu for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Helper and Mini Anganwadi Worker with SSC as basic qualification for the said posts. The Kadiri East was notified with 5 Anganwadi Worker, 27 Anganwadi Helper and one post for Mini Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner possessed B.Com graduation and applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Kadiri East- Ethodu-1, under BC-B category. The 4th respondent office through proceedings Rc.No.83/ICDS/2020, dated 23.12.2020 intimated the petitioner to appear for interview on 28.12.2020 at 6th respondent office at 10:00 A.M. Accordingly, the petitioner along with 3 others including the 7th respondent have attended for the interview. Later, when the petitioner went to 4th respondent office on 31.12.2020, the petitioner came to know that the 7th respondent was selected. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3 3. The 5th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit and mainly contended that the recruitment process followed as per the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.05.2015, the selection committee conducted interviews for many villages from morning 10:30 A.M. to Night 10:00 P.M. Village wise, the candidates are called and as per the performance of the candidates, the marks are awarded and as per their performance in the oral interview, the committee selected the candidates for the respective posts. The District Selection Committee awarded 61 marks to the petitioner and 69 marks to the 7th respondent basing on their performance in oral interview, the 7th respondent got highest marks in the interview. Hence, the 7th respondent selected as AWW and appointment orders were issued on 01.01.2021 and the 7th respondent joined and discharged her duties. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr.S.Kartheek, learned counsel representing Mr.Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, for the respondent(s) as well as Mr.L.Sai Manoj Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the respondents without conducting a written test or calling them separately for interview, when the competition for post is more, while awarding the balance 50 marks the 4 respondents had chosen a method which is not transparent and allotting of 50 marks to the discretion of committee would not be called as fair selection process. The method so adopted gave scope for manipulation in awarding marks, under guise of interview. If a fair process is not adopted in selecting candidates by conducting fresh written exam or transparent and fair interview, the petitioner would suffer grave and irreparable loss. He further submits that the manner in which the interview was conducted and criteria adopted in selecting candidates is not fair selection process and the whole process of appointing the 7th respondent is looked at, it is biased and politically motivated one. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the petitioner without any substantial proof attributing malafides to the committee itself speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioner to malign the decision of the entire Selection Committee. He further submits that the petitioner did not perform well in the oral interview. The allegations levelled by the petitioner that the process of interview is predetermined and biased is absolutely false and the said allegation is made without regard to truth. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5 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 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 7th respondent secured 69 marks in total, whereas the petitioner has secured only 61 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 6 and her marks, the respondents have appointed the 6th 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, 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 ‘61’ and the 7th respondent got total marks ‘69’ and therefore, as per the contention of the respondents, basing on the total marks, the respondents have appointed the 7th 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. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS