APHC010566662013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19215/2013 Between: 1. A. KRISHNAVENI,, W/O. A. RAMANJINA REDDY, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O.SESHAPURAM VILLAGE, RODDAM 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 DIRECTOR, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ANANTAPUR. 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 7. VARALAKSHMI, W/O. SRINIVASULU, AGE: NOT KNOWN, R/O. SESHAPURAM VILLAGE, RODDAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Petitioner is challenging the appointment of the 7th respondent as Anganwadi worker. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner secured 360 marks in SSC, whereas the 7th respondent secured 311 marks in the SSC examination and that respondent Nos.1 to 6 ought to have preferred appointing the petitioner instead of the 7th respondent. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 6 have Issued orders of appointment to the 7th respondent, though she is less meritorious than the petitioner. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 submitted that a detailed counter is filed and that the selection of the candidates were purely done in a transparent manner by the Selection Committee and marks were awarded to the applicants on their performances in the interview. The details of the marks awarded to the petitioner and the 7th respondent are also detailed in the counter. It is further submitted that on overall merit, the 7th respondent was selected and appointed. 3. Considering the counter, the appointment of the 7th respondent cannot be challenged on the sole ground that the petitioner secured more marks in SSC. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 4 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.12.03.2026 SR