ORDER : The petitioner is challenging Annexure-M the provisional selection list for the post of Anganwadi Workers dated: 03.11.2010 more particularly in respect of 5th respondent Smt.Qamrunnisa Dhalayat. 2. Sri.P.Vilaskumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having scored 64.96% marks in SSLC is more qualified over 5th respondent who has scored only 50% marks in SSLC examination. Both of them are the residents of the same village Shivanagi, Tq.Bijapur. The 2nd Respondent ought to have selected the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Worker who is a resident of Shivanagi village. The 5th respondent is a resident of Shivanagi village (Jeergal Wasti). As such, the Jeergal Wasti is not a separate village and it is a part and parcel of Shivanagi village. Under the circumstances, respondent No.2 ought to have counted upon the merit of the petitioner who has secured higher marks in the SSLC examination over respondent No.5. The 5th respondent had submitted a residential certificate issued by the concerned Tahasildar that she is the resident of Shivanagi village. Surprisingly, subsequently, in the provisional list, she is shown to be the resident of Shivanagi (Jeergal Wasti). 3. Sri.A.Syed Habeeb, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in reply submits that Anganwadi Centre is situated in the village of Shivanagi (Jeergal Wasti). In the circumstance, a clarification was sought from the Tahasildar, Bijapur as to which of the candidates was residing at Shivanagi (Jeergal Wasti), for which, he clarified that the petitioner is residing at Shivanagi village and 5th respondent is the resident of Shivanagi (Jeergal Wasti). Annexure-R1 is the clarification by the concerned respondent. In that view of the matter, petitioner not being the resident of Shivanagi (Jeergal Wasti) was not selected for the post. Shivanagi village and Shivanagi (Jeergal Wasti) are three kilometers apart and they are not the same village. Hence, the appointment of 5th respondent to the post of Anganwadi worker – Shivanagi (Jeergal Wasti) is proper and justified. 4. In the light of the above, it emerges that the concerned Tahasildar who had certified residence of the 5th respondent as Shivanagi and further clarified that she is a resident of Shivanagi Jeergal Wasti. It is not only the 5th respondent, some other candidates are also shown to be residents of Shivanagi Jeergal Wasti. However, none other seems to have questioned her appointment. It is not only the 5th respondent, some other candidates are also shown to be residents of Shivanagi Jeergal Wasti. However, none other seems to have questioned her appointment. From the above, it stands to the point that the 5th respondent was selected not on the merit but due to the proximity of her residence to the location of Anganwadi. In that view of the matter, her position stands distinguished from that of the petitioner on the basis of the place of residence and the provisional list cannot be interfered with. Hence, petition stands rejected.