Sk. Noorjahan Begum Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WOMEN CHILDREN DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZEN L-BLOCK, 2ND FLOOR, SECRETARIAT, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD.

¶13

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT AT GUNTUR.

¶14

PROJECT DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S.PROJECT, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

CHAD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, PIDUGURALLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

S K KHUDA JOSHBI, W/O HASAN BASHA, AGED NOT KNOWN BUT MAJOR, R/O DNO 4-77/A, MANDULAGADDA, PIDUGURALLA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature

¶19

2

¶20

of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the appointment of 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Center No3 in Mandulagadda, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 21 dated 24.08.2007 and Memo.No.5771/K3/2006 dated 05.01.2012 issued by the Office of the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently suspend the appointment of 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center No 3 in Mandulagadda, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

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 suspend the appointment of 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center No 3 in Mandulagadda, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.KASI KONDA REDDY YENUMULA

¶27

2.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP)

¶28

3

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶30

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

¶31

“….. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the appointment of 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Center No3 in Mandulagadda, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 21 dated 24.08.2007 and Memo.No.5771/K3/2006 dated 05.01.2012 issued by the Office of the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently suspend the appointment of 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Center No 3 in Mandulagadda, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District and to pass ……”

¶32

Heard Sri Sankar Rao Borra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. None represented for the respondent No.5.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner holds a degree, she was not considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker, whereas respondent No. 5, who has studied only up to 10th class, was selected. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is currently working as an Anganwadi Helper and, despite having nine years of service in that role, she was not promoted as an Anganwadi Worker. It is contended that

¶34

the impugned order appointing respondent No. 5 is unsustainable, as a more meritorious candidate i.e., the petitioner is available for the said post. Learned

¶35

4

¶36

counsel finally prays that the writ petition be allowed by setting aside the appointment order in favour of respondent No. 5.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that it is undisputed that the petitioner is serving as an Anganwadi Helper. However, respondent authorities selected respondent No. 5 as Anganwadi Worker because she secured 64 marks, whereas the petitioner secured only 61 marks. The learned Assistant Government Pleader therefore prays for dismissal of the writ petition, stating that the authorities have followed the due procedure and applicable rules in selecting respondent No. 5 for the post.

¶38

Considering the submissions made and upon a perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the selection of an individual as an Anganwadi Worker must be carried out in accordance with the procedure laid

¶39

down in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.05.2015. For ready reference, the

¶40

parameters prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.18 are as follows:

¶41

Sl.No.	Parameters	Marks
1.	If 10^thclass passed	50
2.	Pre-School teacher training or crèche and pre-school management training conducted by the board of intermediate or recognized university/working as ECE workers	10
3 (a)	widow	5
(b)	Widow with minor children (additional)	5
4	Candidate who is a orphan and who has been an inmate of Bala Sadan and Home or Govt. Institution on the certificate of good conduct and character.	10
5.	Differently abled candidates	5
6.	Oral interview	15
	Total:	100

¶42

In terms of the parameters laid down in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated

¶43

15.05.2015, a candidate possessing SSC (10th class) qualification is entitled

¶44

5

¶45

to 50 marks. The merit of each aspirant is calculated based on these parameters, along with any additional criteria as outlined in the G.O.

¶46

In the present case, the petitioner secured 61 marks, whereas respondent No. 5 secured 64 marks. In view of the merit criteria prescribed under the above-mentioned G.O., respondent No. 5, being the more meritorious candidate, was rightly selected as Anganwadi Worker. In that view, this writ petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal.

¶47