Order 1. The first respondent selected the fourth respondent, who is none other than the daughter of a Government employee working in the Revenue Department, as Child Nutrition Worker (Anganwadi Paniyalar), without considering the claim of the petitioner on the sole ground that she failed to produce the document to the effect that she is a resident of Pethanenthal. 2. The petitioner is stated to be a permanent resident of Pethanenthal, Kanakkankudi Post, Thirupuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District. The petitioner registered her name in the Employment Exchange as early as on 05.07.2000 and renewed it from time to time. The petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Child Nutrition Worker. 3. The second respondent invited applications for appointment to the post of Child Nutrition Worker at Pethanenthal. The petitioner, fourth respondent and another candidate appeared for the interview. The first respondent preferred the fourth respondent and issued appointment order to her. The said order is under challenge in the Writ Petition. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in this writ petition. According to the first respondent, the petitioner failed to produce materials to show that she is a resident of Pethanenthal which is a primary requirement for considering her application. In short, the failure on the part of the petitioner to prove that she is a resident of the area in question was taken as a ground to deny appointment to the petitioner. 5. Even though summon was served, the fourth respondent failed to appear before the Court and as such, her name is printed in the cause list. 6. The petitioner has produced string of documents to show that she is a resident of Pethanenthal. According to the first respondent, the petitioner failed to submit documents indicating her residence and that was the primary reason for rejecting her application for appointment. It is very difficult to believe that the petitioner having documents like employment card, ration card, voter ID, etc., showing her residence at Pethanenthal failed to produce the same before the first respondent during the time of interview. The said reason appears to be a ground taken now to non-suit the petitioner. Taking into account the alleged non-production of documents, the petitioner was not considered by the first respondent. 7. The post of Child Nutrition Worker (Anganwadi Paniyalar) is a lower level post. The said reason appears to be a ground taken now to non-suit the petitioner. Taking into account the alleged non-production of documents, the petitioner was not considered by the first respondent. 7. The post of Child Nutrition Worker (Anganwadi Paniyalar) is a lower level post. The Government have issued several instructions to select the deserving candidates for appointment as Child Nutrition Worker (Anganwadi Paniyalar). The fourth respondent is stated to be the daughter of a government employee. It is true that the position of the father as a government employee, would not be a disqualification. However, the fact remains that the claim of a poor coolie like the petitioner was not considered on merits by the first respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the selection of the fourth respondent is liable to be set aside. 8. The appointment of the fourth respondent is set aside. The first respondent is directed to conduct a fresh interview. The petitioner should also be permitted to take part in the interview. The District Collector is directed to follow the directions issued by the Government in the matter of appointment to the post of Child Nutrition Worker (Anganwadi Paniyalar). The selection process should be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.