APHC010066382021 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: 3997/2021 Between: S. Shirisha, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in appointing the 6th respondent as a Anganwadi worker at Yerraguntapalli of Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthpurain district as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India…….” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents 2 to 5 issued notification for filling up the vacancy of Anganwadi worker in Yerraguntapalli, Nallcheruvu Mandal, Ananthapuramu District vide notification No.233226, dated 11.12.2020. The petitioner has applied for the said post. The respondents have issued a letter dated 23.12.2020 to the petitioner calling for interview. Accordingly, the petitioner attended for interview on 28.12.2020 with all certificates. The 6th respondent also attended interview on the same day. The post was reserved for Open category. The petitioner along with six others including the 6th respondent applied for the said post. The petitioner secured 8.3 Marks in the SSC. The name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No.1 in the merit list and the 6th respondent was shown at Serial No.7. Surprisingly, the official respondents selected the 6th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Yerraguntapalli, Anganwadi center. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 18.02.2021, directed the respondents 3 to 5 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 02.01.2021 made by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 4. Heard Mr.P.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, for the respondents. 3 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 6th respondent does not have requisite qualification as per the notification and secured lower marks than the petitioner in the SSC. The official respondents under the influence of local ruling party political leaders selected the 6th respondent as Anganwadi worker in Yerraguntapalli, Anganwadi center. He further submits that the petitioner is fully eligible as per the notification issued by the official respondents. However, without following the procedure and without looking into the merits of the petitioner, the official respondents appointed the 6th respondent as Anganwadi worker, which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and submits that the 6th respondent secured marks in 10th class-50 marks, 10 marks for being a widow with minor Children and 19 marks in the interview, bringing the total to 79 marks. Whereas, the petitioner secured marks in 10th class-50, 10 marks for being a widow with minor Children and 8 marks awarded by the committee, bringing the total to 68 marks. The entire recruitment process was followed as per G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.05.2015. Therefore, the 6th respondent has been selected as Anganwadi Worker and appointed as AWW vide 4 Progs.No.1/A/2021, dated 01.01.2021. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and this Court, by order dated 18.02.2021, directed the respondents 3 to 5 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 02.01.2021 made by the petitioner in accordance with law. In compliance with the same, the then 4th respondent issued Speaking orders to the petitioner vide Rc.Nop.27/A/2024, dated 24.06.2024. Further, the respondents became aware of a typographical error in speaking order dated 24.06.2024, where G.O.Ms.No.15 was mentioned instead of G.O.Ms.No.18. After verifying the speaking orders, the 4th respondent issued corrected speaking orders vide Rc.No.27/A/2024, dated 06.12.2024 stating that the petitioner’s application could not be considered and was therefore rejected. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader 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 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- 05 5 School management training conducted by the Board of intermediate or recongized University/working as ECE Workers 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 20 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 6th respondent secured 79 marks in total, whereas the petitioner has secured only 68 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 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. 6 11. Therefore, as seen from the counter, it is observed that, after adding Oral interview marks, the petitioner herein got total marks ‘68’ and the 6th respondent got total marks ‘79’ and therefore, as per the contention of the respondents, basing on the total marks, the respondents have appointed the 6th 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