Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1605 (AP)

Paidi Sandhya v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-12-31

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief : ".....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in 15/2021 dated 04.11.2021 issued by the 5th respondent is wholly illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitles to be appointed in service as Anganwadi Worker at Satravupeta, ICDS Project, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District and pass...." 2. The facts of the case are that a Notification was issued by 5th respondent authorities in the month of September, 2021 for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker across the Anganwadi Kendras in Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner applied for the said post among a large number of candidates and later the respondent issued call letter for interview/selection to attend on 28th September, 2021 at the office of Project Director, DW & CDA, Srikakulam but it was cancelled and another call letter for interview/ selection to attend on 8th October, 2021 at 10.00 hrs., at Office of Project Director, DW & CDA, Srikakulam. In that, the petitioner had performed to the best satisfaction of the Interview Board. Through RTI application, information was secured and based upon that information, the petitioner is having highest marks among all the candidates who have applied for Anganwadi Worker at Satravupeta Village of ICDS project, Narasannapeta. However, the petitioner is not figured in final merit list despite she is having highest marks in eligibility list. It is further stated that the 5th respondent appointed the 6th respondent vide 15/2021 dated 04.11.2021 who is having only SSC qualification and less marks than the petitioner in eligibility list and it was done only under political pressure. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without taking into consideration the certificate possessed by the petitioner and marks, appointment of 6th respondent as Anganwadi worker at Satravupeta of ICDS Project, Narasannapet, Srikakulam, is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 3. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The main grievance of the petitioner is that without taking into consideration the certificate possessed by the petitioner and marks, appointment of 6th respondent as Anganwadi worker at Satravupeta of ICDS Project, Narasannapet, Srikakulam, is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 3. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, stated that, the call letters also sent to the eligible candidates who have applied for the posts of AWW/AWH/MINI AWW for appearing to the interview. Out of 16 eligible candidates, 3 candidates absent, and remaining 13 eligible candidates have been attended for interview on 08.10.2021. The District Selection Committee conducted interview and selected Smt. Annepu Soundarya by the Committee as she got highest marks (66) in interview and issued appointment order to Smt. Annepu. Soundarya vide Proceedings Rc.No.15/2021, dated 14.11.2021 after the approval of the Selection Committee Chairman i.e., District Collector, Srikakulam. For the eligible post 10th class pass only educational qualification coupled with interview marks are criteria. The selection of any Anganwadi Worker or Mini Anganwadi Worker or Anganwadi Helper the Selection Committee decision is the final. It is further stated that the petitioner's request to select her as she got highest marks in 10th class which is not at all only criteria for the selection of AWW post. Interview marks and education 10th class are the criteria for the AWW post's selection awarded at the time of interview by the Members of Selection Committee, according to G.O. Ms. No.18 WDCW & DW, ICDS dated 15.05.2015. It is further stated that the writ petitioner did not get more marks than the 6th respondent herein, apart from that the respondent has shown tables form how the writ petitioner and 6th respondent got marks as per their educational as well as interview marks for perusal as under : S.No. Name Marks secured 1 Paidi Sandhya 64 2 Annepu Soundarya 66 In view of the above marks awarded by the Committee, appointed the 6th respondent as Anganwadi Worker of the Sattaravupeta Village Centre and 6th respondent was joined in the said post on 27.11.2021 after following due process of law. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri P. Visweswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-II and Sri Umasankar Lokanadham, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri P. Visweswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-II and Sri Umasankar Lokanadham, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the writ petition, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. Whereas, learned Counsels appearing for the respondents also while reiterating the contents made in the counter-affidavit, opposed for grant of any relief in this writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 6. Perused the material on record. 7. On a perusal of the material, it is observed that, the criteria for the AWW post's selection awarded at the time of interview by the Members of Selection Committee, according to G.O. Ms. No.18 WDCW & DW, ICDS dated 15.05.2015, the Government has also issued certain parameters for adopting by the Selection Committee for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers. The statement reads as under : S.No. Parameters Marks 1 Marks secured in X Class examination 50 2 Pre-School teacher training or creche and pre-school management training conducted by the Board of Intermediate or recognized University/working as ECE Workers 10 3 (a) Widow 5 (b) Widow with minor children (additional) 5 4 Candidate who is an orphan and who has been an inmate of Bala Sadan/Government Institutions/Government recognized institutions 10 5 Differently abled candidates 5 6 Oral Interview 15 Total 100 8. On a perusal of the above, the criteria for the AWW Post selection is only 10th Class Pass. So, the petitioner has already passed 10th Class and applied for the said post. Moreover, as seen from the Eligibility List for the post of Anganwadi Worker of ICDS Project-Narasannapeta, it is observed that, the petitioner got total marks 60, whereas the 6th respondent-Annepalli Soundarya got only 50 marks. 9. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner that, without taking into consideration of the certificates possessed by the petitioner and her marks, the respondents have appointed the 6th respondent as Anganwadi Worker at Satravupeta of ICDS Project, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, for substantiating the evidence of petitioner, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the documents shown that the petitioner possessed qualifications, but, on a perusal of the above, it clearly shows that oral interview marks are not added. Moreover, for substantiating the evidence of petitioner, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the documents shown that the petitioner possessed qualifications, but, on a perusal of the above, it clearly shows that oral interview marks are not added. Whereas, the respondents have filed counter alongwith the Eligibility List, which includes the oral interview marks for all the participants. 10. Therefore, as seen from the Eligibility List furnished by the respondents alongwith their counter, it is observed that, after adding Oral interview marks, the petitioner herein got total marks 64' and the 6th respondent got total marks 66' and therefore, as per the contention of the respondents, basing on the total marks, the 5th respondent had appointed the 6th respondent who got highest marks. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and on perusing the material on record, this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.