Dismissed¶33

C Manjulamma v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2025WP/1536/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi Worker / Anganwadi Helper selection dispute; G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015 marking scheme (50 marks for 10th class, 15 marks oral interview, total 100); petitioner 62 marks vs Respondent No. 5 (M Roopa) 67 marks; CDPO ICDS Kambadur; Anantapur district; Article 226 mandamus; Writ Petition No. 1536 of 2019; dismissed, no costs; natural justice challenge rejected.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶33

C Manjulamma Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010033302019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 1536/2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

C MANJULAMMA, W/O. VANNURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 0CC- EX-SARPANCH, R/O.P.CHERLOPALLY VILLAGE, KAMBADUR MANDAL, ANNTHAPUR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR.

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR / CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT

¶14

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT

¶15

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT, KAMBADUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT

¶16

M ROOPA, W/O. SURESH, R/O. P. CHERLOPALLY VILLAGE, KAMBADUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.K SRINIVAS

¶20

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP)

¶23

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer:

¶26

“….. to issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in promoting the 5^th respondent as Anganwadi worker from Anganwadi helper in Proc.284/A/2017, dated 16.08.2018 and appointed the 5^th respondent as a Anganwadi helper in Proc.43/A/2015 dated 12.11.2015 is illegal, ambiguity and is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same ……”

¶27

Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramakrishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner secured higher marks in the 10th class examination than respondent No.5, respondent No.5 was selected as Anganwadi Worker in contravention of the rules.

¶29

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare would submit that, in light of G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015, out of the marks secured in the 10th class, a candidate would get 50 marks. During the course of the interview, both the petitioner and respondent No.5 appeared; the petitioner secured 62 marks, whereas respondent No.5 secured 67 marks. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that educational qualification is not the sole criterion for selection to the post of

¶30

¶31

Anganwadi Helper. He would further submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the appointment of respondent No.5 as Anganwadi Helper and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, G.O.Ms.No.18, which sets out the parameters to be considered for the selection of Anganwadi Helper, shows that based on the marks secured in the 10th class examination, a candidate would get 50 marks, apart from the other parameters mentioned in the G.O. For the oral interview, 15 marks are allotted. Out of 100 marks, the petitioner got 62 marks, whereas respondent No.5 secured 67 marks, due to which she was appointed as Anganwadi Helper. Hence, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶33