Challenge to selection of a rival candidate as Anganwadi Worker on grounds her husband was a Government servant, suppression in application and residence. Court held no rule disqualifies relatives of Government servants; the selected candidate resided nearer the Centre. Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.20037 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.(MD)No.20037 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16555 and 16556 of 2019
S.Kavitha
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Madurai District @ Madurai.
2.The Integrated Child Development Scheme Officer, Office of the Integrated Child Development Scheme, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-625020.
3.G.Sathiya ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the first respondent in his proceedings in e.f.vz;. 1949/2017/m1 dated 03.06.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi
1/8
W.P(MD)No.20037 of 2019
Worker in Centre No.113, Kinnimangalam Kaliammankovil street, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District by considering her representation dated 08.07.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathish Babu
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2
Mr.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R3
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the appointment of the third respondent to the Post of Anganwadi Worker under the impugned order dated 03.06.2019 passed in Na.Ka.No.1949/2017/A1 by the first respondent and consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the writ petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in Centre No.113, Kinnimangalam Kaliammankovil Street, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
Post of Anganwadi Worker in Madurai District by direct recruitment. Totally 10 candidates, including the writ petitioner and the third
2/8
W.P(MD)No.20037 of 2019
respondent have applied for the Post of Anganwadi Worker in Kinnimangalam Kaliammankovil Street Centre, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. All the applicants were called for an interview on 06.09.2017. Both the writ petitioner as well as the third respondent participated in the interview. Subsequently, the third respondent was appointed. Hence, the writ petitioner has challenged the appointment order of the third respondent on the following grounds:-
(i) since the third respondent's husband is working as Panchayat Secretary at Sorrikkampatti Panchayat, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union, Thirumangalam, Madurai District, the third respondent is not eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker as per the recruitment notification;
(iii) the petitioner resides much nearer to the Anganwadi Centre compared to the third respondent.
W.P(MD)No.20037 of 2019
submit that though the third respondent's husband is working as a Panchayat Secretary in the Panchayat office, the third respondent, by suppressing the same, in her application mentioned that no one in her family is in Government Service. He would further submit that the writ petitioner is residing within 1 km radius of the Centre.
respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there is no disqualification for a person whose family member is a Government servant to apply for the said post and at the time of recruitment process, the third respondent's husband was working as a part time Panchayat Clerk in the Panchayat Office on consolidated pay. He would further submit that the writ petitioner is residing within 1 km radius of the Anganwadi Centre, whereas, the third respondent is residing within ½ km radius of the Anganwadi Centre. Hence, the third respondent is more suitable to that of the writ petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Worker and therefore, the appointment order need not be interfered with.
W.P(MD)No.20037 of 2019
W.P(MD)No.20037 of 2019
time scale of pay in the year 2018. Hence, there is no impediment in appointing the third respondent.
25.08.2025
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No csm
6/8
W.P(MD)No.20037 of 2019
To
1.The District Collector, Madurai District @ Madurai.
2.The Integrated Child Development Scheme Officer, Office of the Integrated Child Development Scheme, K.K.Nagar, Madurai-625020.
W.P(MD)No.20037 of 2019
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
csm
Order made in W.P.(MD)No.20037 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16555 and 16556 of 2019
Dated : 25.08.2025
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the third respondent's appointment as Anganwadi Worker was invalid because her husband is a Government servant.
Whether the petitioner was more suitable for appointment than the third respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Kavitha
The District Collector, Madurai District @ Madurai
The Integrated Child Development Scheme Officer
G.Sathiya
K.Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
