Smt Meenaka Jayanthi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

SMT MEENAKA JAYANTHI, W/O KONDAGORRI BALARAM , AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. UN-EMPLOYEE (ANGANWADI WORKER) R/O PUDESU .VILLAGE, KOMARADA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYM DISTRICT, (VIZAYANAGRAM)A P.

¶14

...PETITIONER

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, JAMPANI TOWERS, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶18

THE DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANWADI WORKERS, PARVATHIPURAM, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶19

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ICDC PROJECT, PARVATHIPURAM.DISTRICT

¶20

THE CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICE SOCIETY (FAC) ITDA PARVATHIPURAM , KOMARADA ,MANDAL PARVATHIPURAM

¶21

2

¶22

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶23

SMT KALAPA MOHINI, W/O UPENDRA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS OCC.ANGANWADI WORKER) PUDESU .VILLAGE, KOMARADA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM MANYM DISTRICT, (VIZAYANAGRAM)A P.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

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 pass an order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Particularly the 5th respondent issued the impugned proceedings in Re NO 11/2022 as a Anganwadi worker post dated 30-9-2022 .issued by the 6th Unofficial Respondent as illegal arbitrary Discrimination,Unjust,Unsustainable while stood thus the petitioner more meritorious candidate and also more Experience and Age in not giving priority to the Anganwadi worker post while so the respondents Authority fill-up the Lesser merit candidate appointed above said post ie 6th respondent by the respondents Contrary to GO MS 15 dated 4-04-2012 as wholly illegal arbitrary. And violation of the principal of natural justice.My rights guaranteed Under Article 14,16,and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently Setaside the same with further direction the respondents to Stop the 6th unofficial respondent Service as.a Anganwadi worker At Pudesu Village,Komarada.Mandal,Parvathipuram Manym District, and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

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 impugned proceedings in Rc NO 11/2022 as a Anganwadi worker post dated 30-9-2022issued by the 5th respondent pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.KRISHNA RAO M

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

3

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO: 2208/2023

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following

¶38

relief:

¶39

“ …….to issue an order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Particularly the 5th respondent issued the impugned proceedings in Re NO 11/2022 as a Anganwadi worker post dated 30-9-2022 .issued by the 6th Unofficial Respondent as illegal arbitrary Discrimination,Unjust,Unsustainable while stood thus the petitioner more meritorious candidate and also more Experience and Age in not giving priority to the Anganwadi worker post while so the respondents Authority fill-up the Lesser merit candidate appointed above said post ie 6th respondent by the respondents Contrary to GO MS 15 dated 4-04-2012 as wholly illegal arbitrary. And violation of the principal of natural justice.My rights guaranteed Under Article 14,16,and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently Set-aside the same with further direction the respondents to Stop the 6th un-official respondent Service as.a Anganwadi worker At Pudesu Village ,Komarada. Mandal, Parvathipuram Manym District, and pass….”

¶40

Heard Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.L.V.S.Prasad, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondentsWomen Development Child Welfare.

¶41

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she belongs to SC Community and studied Intermediate. Pursuant to the notification dated 05.09.2022 for selection of Anganwadi Workers, the petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Pudesu Village, Pedashaka Post, Komaradam Mandal, Parvathipuram Manyam District. The petitioner received call letter, appeared for interview, and the petitioner is a fully qualified and eligible candidate for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. However, the 5^th

¶42

4

¶43

respondent selected and appointed the 6^th respondent herein as Anganwadi Worker, who is ineligible as per the notification.

¶44

It is further averred in the affidavit that respondent No.5 issued the appointment order to the 6^th respondent without following the rule of reservation and also without considering the merit in the 10^th class and also without considering the age of the petitioner, the 5^th respondent, without following notification norms and without following the parameters fixed under G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015, interviews have been conducted and one excess mark was given to the 6^th respondent and selection was held in favour of the 6th respondent.

¶45

It is further stated that it is clear discrimination against the petitioner, the petitioner has secured 7.7 grade points in SSC and having additional qualification ie., experience certificate and crossed 25 years age, but the respondent authorities have selected the 6^th respondent, who is lesser meritorious than the petitioner in the grade points in SSC.

¶46

The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit, inter-alia, contended

¶47

that as per the notification and as per G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015, parameters for selection of candidates is prescribed as:

¶48

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 SCE Workers.	5
3(a)	Widow	5
3(b)	Widow with minor children (Additional)	5
4	Candidate who is a orphan and who has been an	10

¶49

5

¶50

	inmate of Bala Sadan/Government Institutions/
	Government Recognized institutions.
5	Differently able candidates	5
6	Oral Interview	20

¶51

If the candidate possesses 10^th class passed certificate, she is entitled for 50 marks; if she had Pre-School Teacher Training, she is entitled for 5 marks; if candidate is an orphan, she is entitled for 10 marks; if candidate is widow, she is entitled for 5 marks; if candidate is widow with children, she is entitled for 5 marks; differently abled person is entitled for 5 marks; and oral interview carries 20 marks.

¶52

In the present case, the petitioner got 62.5 marks as per the parameters fixed in the said G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015, whereas respondent No.6 got 63.50 marks. Though the petitioner tried to submit that the respondents failed to consider the grade marks in SSC as she got more marks in SSC, as per the parameters prescribed in the said G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015, the respondent authorities have considered the merit as per the parameters fixed in the said G.O. As per G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015, a candidate possessing 10^th certificate is entitled for 50 marks, the petitioner’s contention that the respondent authorities failed to consider the merit in the SSC cannot be considered. As possessing SSC certificate itself carries 50 marks and there cannot be any classification basing on the marks as per rules in the above said G.O.

¶53

The respondent authorities also placed the list of marks obtained by each candidate who participated in selection process, which clearly shows

¶54

6

¶55

that the selection was made as per eligibility and parameters mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015.

¶56

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under the parameters fixed in G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015 and there is no violation, and the respondents have no occasion to look into the SSC marks or consider the age of the petitioner, as the unofficial respondent stood higher in merit than the writ petitioner.

¶57

For the foregoing reasons, there is no illegality or irregularity in appointing respondent No.6 as Anganwadi Worker. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J

¶60

Date: 08.07.2026 SSA

¶61

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non.-Reportable Yes/No

¶62

7

¶63

04