APHC010482572013 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: 27809/2013 Between: 1. T.VENKATA KUMARI,, W/O.AMARNATH, OCC;UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.RAJANALAPALLI, H/O.OBULA REDDY PALLI, TALUPULA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT, CHILD WELFARE & DISABLED WELFARE (ICDS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,HYDERABAD 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, - 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, (ICDS),PENUKONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER ICDS, PROJECT, KADIRI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 5. D YAMUNA W/O R SUBBA REDDY, R/O.RAJANALAPALLI, H/O.OBULA REDDY PALLI POST, TALUPULA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE 3. M PRASADA RAO The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Petitioner is aggrieved by appointment of the 5th respondent as an Anganwadi worker in place of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for the said post in pursuance of a notification dated 12.01.2011. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the recruitment ought to have been completed in pursuance of the notification only and nothing beyond. It is submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have issued G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 04.04.2012 and introduced fresh parameters for selection of the Anganwadi workers. It is further submitted that once the notification is issued respondent Nos.1 to 4 have no manner of right to tinker with the selection process and places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another1 3. It is also submitted that on merits the petitioner had secured highest marks and stood as the topper. It is submitted that the petitioner secured 427 marks in SSC examination and was awarded 35.58 weightage marks. The 5th respondent secured 352 marks and was awarded 29.33 marks as weightage. When the petitioner secured highest weightage marks for having secured highest marks in the SSC, the 5th respondent could not have been appointed as an Anganwadi worker. As such, the petitioner is seeking a direction to quash the appointment order of the 5th respondent. 1 (2008) 3 SCC 512 4 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter and that the selection of Anganwadi workers is governed by the G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 02.12.2004 and G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 24.08.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 03.11.2008, apart from the proceedings of the Commissioner for Women Development and Child Welfare, dated 29.03.2011. It is further submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.15 was introduced for amending the G.O.Ms.No.28 and the said G.O.Ms.No.15 is prospective in effect. The introduction of the selection committee was in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 24.08.2007. It is submitted that the selection committee has considered various parameters and awarded marks after conducting interviews. 5. It is also submitted that the extract of the selection committee's recommendation awarding marks to various applicants who applied for the post of Anganwadi worker is also filed along with the writ petition. It is submitted that as many as five applicants applied for the Anganwadi workers' post at Rajanalapally and the selection committee awarded 39.73 marks after conducting the interview to the 5th respondent whereas the petitioner was awarded 38.58 marks for after the interview. It is also evident from the extract filed along with the counter that the petitioner was awarded 35.58 weightage marks for her SSC performance and the 5th respondent was awarded 29.33 marks for her SSC marks. However, on overall merit, the 5th respondent stood the preferred candidate of the selection committee. 5 6. Considering the submissions and also considering the counter filed, the selection process is evidently not in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 04.04.2012 and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 7. 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