Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the relief of a writ of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records in Na.Ka.No.1656/A1/08 dated 11/10/2008 of the second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same and also resultantly, directing him to appoint the petitioner as "Mini Anganwadi Worker" for Patti (Posukudi) Centre. 2. Before dealing into the merits of the case, the factual back drop of the case is stated hereunder: According to the petitioner, the Government by means of G.O.Ms.No.186 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department dated 4/10/2007 has accorded sanction for creation of 3,168 mini centres in Tamil Nadu. The first respondent pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, has issued the following guidelines in respect of appointment of "Mini Anganwadi Workers". They are as follows: a. The candidate should be a female and preference should be given to destitute widows & poor, SC/ST Minorities as per the rules in force. b. Age: 20 years to 35 years of age relaxation upto 40 years will be given to widows, deserted women and candidates in hill areas. c. Educational qualification:-10th Standard passed. d. Residential criteria:-Shall be residing within a distance of 3 Kms from the centre and in the case of non-availability of any local candidates, persons residing in a radius of 10 Kms shall be considered. e. Mode of appointment:-Selection Committee comprising of District Program Officer, Child Development Project Officer and Medical Officer shall select the eligible candidates. f. Appointing authority:-Eligible candidate selected by the selection Committee shall be appointed by the District Collector. g. Honorarium:-As ordered in G.O.Ms.No.186, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 4/10/2007." 3. The second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by his order dated 2/7/2008, directed the third respondent/District Program Officer, Ramanathapuram to fill up the vacancies for Mini Anganwadis in Ramanathapuram District. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 2/7/2008 called for filling up the vacancies. The petitioner has applied for the post of "Mini Anganwadi Worker" for Patti (Posukudi). A call letter dated 21/7/2008 has been sent to the petitioner for an interview slated on 25/7/2008 by the fourth respondent. 4. One Kalaiselvi, Vellayammal, Kamatchi, Sridevi, Kavitha, Maheshwari have attended the interview along with the petitioner on 25/7/2008. All the participants in the interview are from Most Backward Communities. The petitioners husband expired on 4/12/2007 and she is a destitute widow. 5. 4. One Kalaiselvi, Vellayammal, Kamatchi, Sridevi, Kavitha, Maheshwari have attended the interview along with the petitioner on 25/7/2008. All the participants in the interview are from Most Backward Communities. The petitioners husband expired on 4/12/2007 and she is a destitute widow. 5. The second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by means of his proceedings dated 11/10/2008 has temporarily appointed the fifth respondent for the post of "Mini Anganwadi Worker". 6. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as per Government letter dated 20/3/2008, wherein guidelines have been issued, the petitioner should have been selected instead of the fifth respondent by the third and fourth respondents and on whose recommendation, the second respondent has appointed the fifth respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned appointment order dated 11/10/2008 issued by the second Respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, is against the basic rules for appointment to the post of "Anganwadi Workers" and therefore, it is not legally sustainable in the eye of law. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that preference ought to be given to the destitute widows and poor and the impugned order dated 11/10/2008 passed by the second respondent/District Collector in appointing the fifth respondent is against the guidelines issued by the first respondent dated 20/3/1988 and as such, the impugned order of the second respondent dated 11/10/2008 is to be quashed. 9. The sum and substance of the plea put forward on the side of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner and the fifth respondent belong to the Most Backward Community and that the petitioner comes under the category of Destitute woman/widow and as such, she should have been appointed instead of the fifth respondent. 10. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 that the third respondent/ District Program Officer issued a Notification to fill up the vacancies of the Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in Ramanathapuram on 2/7/2008 and the said Notification, included the Patti (Posukudi) Centre. 11. 10. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 that the third respondent/ District Program Officer issued a Notification to fill up the vacancies of the Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in Ramanathapuram on 2/7/2008 and the said Notification, included the Patti (Posukudi) Centre. 11. According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, the petitioner has applied for the post of "Anganwadi Worker" for Anganwadi Patti and as per the interview call letter sent to the petitioner, she has attended the interview on 27/8/2008 and she has produced the relevant documents and certificates before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee comprising of the third respondent/District Program Officer, the fourth respondent/District Child Development Project Officer, Ramanathapuram and the District Medical Officer have to select an eligible candidate. 12. The contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 is that the fifth respondent/Maheshwari is aged 29 years, whereas the petitioners age has been 22 and the fifth respondent has been seven years senior in age than that of the petitioner which has been taken into account by the Selection Committee for her appointment and hence the fifth respondent/ Maheshwari is a more qualified person inasmuch as she has completed B.A.Degree (History). In effect, the contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for R.R.1 to 4 is the Selective Committee has recommended the fifth respondent for the post of "Mini Anganwadi Worker" for Patti (Posukudi) Centre and accordingly, the second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram in his impugned proceeding dated 11/10/2008 has appointed the fifth respondent temporarily as "Mini Anganwadi Worker". 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Destitute widow. Further, as per letter No.355/S.W.7 (1)/2008-2 dated 20/3/2008 of the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare & NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9, a preference should be given to the destitute widows and poor, SC/ST Minorities as per the Rules in force and the age limit has been prescribed as 20 – 35 years of age. Relaxation upto 40 years will be given to widows, deserted women and candidates in hill areas. 14. Relaxation upto 40 years will be given to widows, deserted women and candidates in hill areas. 14. A scrutiny of the letter No.355/S.W.7(1)/ 2008-2 dated 20/3/2008 of the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare & NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 candidly points out that the destitute widow and poor belonging to SC/ST Minority Communities, will have to be given preference in the matter of selection of an eligible candidate for the post of "Mini Anganwadi Worker". 15. Generally, in the matter of appointments, the view taken by the expert Committee or Selection Committee cannot be interfered with, because of the simple fact that the persons who are in the Selection Committee or expert Committee are supposed to be the right persons for selecting the eligible candidate for a particular post. 16. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner is a destitute widow aged about 23 years. However, her qualification is SSLC (X Standard). But the selected person namely the fifth respondent is aged 29 years at the time of her selection and her qualification is B.A.Degree (History). Though an endeavour has been made on the part of R.R.1 to 4 that the fifth respondent is senior in age by seven years to that of the petitioner and further, she has completed B.A.(History), yet this Court is of the considered view that in the instant case on hand, the preference to be given to the destitute widow namely the petitioner as per the letter No.355/S.W.7(1)/2008-2 dated 20/3/2008 of the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare & NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 has not been obviously kept in mind or taken into consideration by the Selection Committee or by the second Respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram while issuing the impugned order dated 11/10/2008 in appointing the fifth respondent overriding the case of the petitioner. 17. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Advocate appearing for R.R.1 to 4 that the fifth respondent, who has been appointed as per the order of the second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram dated 11/10/2008 is continuing to work as "Mini Anganwadi Worker" and she continues to serve till even today. 18. An individual can challenge the selection process on grounds of mala fide or other patent irregularities committed in the selection process. 19. 18. An individual can challenge the selection process on grounds of mala fide or other patent irregularities committed in the selection process. 19. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the judicial review of an administrative action will be justified in case of mala fide or procedural irregularities. 20. By and large, it is not the function of a Court of law sitting in writ jurisdiction to convert itself into a Court of appeal over the decisions of the selection committee. 21. In the instant case on hand, it is not explained to the satisfaction of this Court on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 as to why the petitioner has not been given preference in the matter of selection for the post of "Anganwadi Worker" when she comes under the category of Destitute widow. 22. Inasmuch as the guidelines issued in letter No.355/S.W.7(1)/2008-2 dated 20/3/2008 of the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare & NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 has not been borne in mind or taken into consideration by the Selection Committee or even by the second Respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram at the time of issuance of impugned order dated 11/10/2008, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment of "Anganwadi Worker" in Ramanathapuram District, in an existing vacancy or in a vacancy likely to arise in the near future by the appropriate authorities concerned including the second Respondent/District Collector by adhering to the guidelines issued in the aforesaid letter of the Government dated 20/3/2008 in true letter and spirit and this Court issues this direction on the basis of Fair play, Equity, Good conscience and even as a matter of prudence and this exercise is to be carried out by the authorities concerned within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the authorities concerned including the second respondent/District Collector are to act dispassionately uninfluenced and untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in this writ petition to prevent an aberration of justice. 23. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.