APHC010293262013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24073/2013 Between: 1. BODDU RAJASREE @ RAJESWARI, W/O.VENKATA RAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O.GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, TARLUPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WOMEN AND CHILD, WELFARE DEPARTMENT REP.BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, TARLUPADU VILLAGE & MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. MADIREDDY LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O.VEERANJANEYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O.GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, TARLUPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Anganavadi Teacher of Gollapalli Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District, who do not possess the requisite qualification of 21 years as on 01.-07-2010 as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of Notification 2 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently set aside the appointment of the 3rd respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 29591 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 Fix an early date of hearing of the above writ petition in this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Anganwadi Teacher on the ground that the 3rd respondent, as per the notification, should have completed twenty (21) years of age as on 01.07.2010. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent did not meet the requirement as per the notification insofar as the age criteria is concerned. However, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have appointed the 3rd respondent as Anganwadi Teacher in contravention of the notification. It is submitted that the petitioner attended the interview in pursuance of her application. However, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the 3rd respondent though she does not meet the age criteria as per the notification. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the Selection Committee has considered the applications received and conducted the interview. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent had met the age criteria and was accordingly selected. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent did not meet the age criteria for being appointed as Anganwadi Teacher. Even as seen from the record available, the 3rd respondent meets the age criteria and the selection process cannot be challenged on that ground. 4 4. On these considerations, this Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 31.03.2026 PNS