APHC010029952013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 32487/2013 Between: 1. G. LAKSHMI,, W/O. M. SURESH, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. NYAMADDALA VILLAGE, C.K. PAILI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT FOR WOMEN, CHLIDREN (ICDS), DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, - 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DHARMAVARAM ANANTAPUR DIST, - 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ANANTAPUR. 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT, CHENNEKOTHAPALLI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 6. G LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O. NAGABUSHANA, AGED NOT KNOWN, OCC: ANGANWADI WORKER OF NYAMADDALA VILLAGE, CHENNEKOTHAPALLI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in appointing 6th respondent as an Anganwadi Worker of Nyamaddala Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District is illegal, arbitrary and also in contrary to G.O.Ms.No.21, Dt.24.08:2007 and G.O.Ms.No.15, Dt.04.04.2012 and consequently set aside the 6th respondent's appointment for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Nyamaddala Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District and further direct the respondents 2 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Nyamaddala Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District, and to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 40406 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to consider the representation Dt.23.10.2013 made by the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V NITESH 2. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by appointment of the 6th respondent as a Anganwadi worker. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner secured more marks in SSC than the 6th respondent and that the 6th respondent is not a native of Nyamadala Village. The Petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 ought to have followed the notification issued for filling up the posts of Anganwadi workers and in appointing the 6th respondent have violated the terms and conditions thereto by ignoring the aspect of nativity. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has filed a counter and it is submitted that the petitioner was awarded proportionate weightage marks secured in SSC and proportionate weightage marks were awarded to the 6th respondent for the marks secured in SSC. However the selection committee after conducting the interview had preferred the 6th respondent after considering the performance of the candidates. 3. It is further submitted that the 6th respondent has submitted the nativity certificate which was verified and ascertained. On the recommendation of the selection committee, the 6th respondent was appointed as the Anganwadi worker having secured 36.41 marks in the overall merit list. The petitioner secured 34.41 marks and as such, the selection committee referred the 6th respondent and accordingly, appointed the 6th respondent. 4 4. Considering the submissions and also considering that the selection committee has verified the nativity of the 6th respondent and that the selection committee has also awarded proportionate weightage marks for the marks secured in SSC for both the petitioner and the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent has finally been selected by the selection committee after conducting the interviews. As such this Court finds no grounds to interfere. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt:01.04.2026 SR