WRIT PETITION 30068 of 2018 on 29 December 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petitionis filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:

.to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaringthe impugned action of the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 in selecting and appointing the6th respondent as Anganwadi worker of J.Gumadam Village,Bondapal[li][ Mandal,]VIzianagaram District vide proceedings No. 69/2017 dated 29.12.2017 as arbitrary,illegal, improper and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents Nos.3 to 5 to consider the case of the petitioners as per their merit for appointment asAnganwadi worker of J Gumadam village,Bondapalli Mandal, Vizlanagaram District and to grant..."

2. Heard Ms. Taddi Sowmya, learned CounselrepresentingSriTaddiNageswaraRao,learnedCounselfor thepetitioners,learnedAssistantGovernment Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri R.Srikanth, learned Counselfor the respondent No.6.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner Nos.1and 2 aretheresidentsof J.GumadamVillage,BondapalliMandal,Vizianagaram District. Both are qualified for the post of Anganwadi Worker.The1®*petitionerisa graduateandthe2ndpetitionerstudieduptointermediate. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners werecalled for the interview for the post of Anganwadi Worker[ on]15.11.2017.Whereas, the respondent No.6 also applied for the said post though she is not1and 2 aretheresidentsof J.GumadamVillage,BondapalliMandal,Vizianagaram District. Both are qualified for the post of Anganwadi Worker.The1®*petitionerisa graduateandthe2ndpetitionerstudieduptointermediate. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioners werecalled for the interview for the post of Anganwadi Worker[ on]15.11.2017.Whereas, the respondent No.6 also applied for the said post though she is noteligible since she does not belong to that village.The respondent-authoritieswithout considering the objections and eligibility criteria, have selected therespondentNo.6attheinstanceoflocalM.L.A.,forextraneousconsiderations. Learned Counsel for the petitioner[would][ further][ submit][ that]the nameof the respondentNo.6isnotreflectinginthevoters’listofJ.Gumadam Village. The respondent No.6 is a resident of Yedlapalem Villageas she is married to one Mr. S. Appalaraju of Yedlapalem Village. Accordingto the prescribed guidelines, only the daughter-in-law of the concerned villageis eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioners made acomplainttothe respondentNo.2thattherespondent No.6 belongs toYedlapalemVillage but shefiledfabricated documentstoshowthatshewithout considering the objections and eligibility criteria, have selected therespondentNo.6attheinstanceoflocalM.L.A.,forextraneousconsiderations. Learned Counsel for the petitioner[would][ further][ submit][ that]the nameof the respondentNo.6isnotreflectinginthevoters’listofJ.Gumadam Village. The respondent No.6 is a resident of Yedlapalem Villageas she is married to one Mr. S. Appalaraju of Yedlapalem Village. Accordingto the prescribed guidelines, only the daughter-in-law of the concerned villageis eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioners made acomplainttothe respondentNo.2thattherespondent No.6 belongs toYedlapalemVillage but shefiledfabricated documentstoshowthatshe

belongs to J.Gumadam Village. Learned Counsel would[further][ submit][ that][ the]respondent No.5 issued the appointment orders appointing therespondentas Anganwadi Worker of J.Gumadam Village. Learned Counsel finally submitsthat the voter I.D card of the 6*^ respondent is changed to J.Gumadam Villageon 29.12.2017 the very date on which the impugned proceedings appointingher as Anganwadi Worker were issued. The job card of the[ 6'^] respondentalso showsthat sheis the wifeof oneMr.S. AppalaRajuresidentofYedlapalem Village.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare[would][ submit]that on the objections made by the petitioners, the[respondent-authorities]enquiredintothematterwhethertherespondentNo.6isresidentofJ.Gumadam Village or Yedlapalem Village. Learned Assistant[Government]Pleader would submit that according to the rules issued by the Governmentfrom time to time, the respondent No.6 was selected as Anganwadi Worker.The Aadhaar Card, Ration Card would show that sheisaresidentofJ.Gumadam Village.The J.Gumadam Village and the Yedlapalem[Villages][ are]not two distinct villages but Yedlapalem is a hamlet[of][ J.Gumadam][ Village]within onePanchayat.ThereisnoseparatePanchayatfor YedlapalemVillage. These two villages are situated at a distance[of half a][ kilometer.][ The]respondent No.6 was born in J.Gumadam Village, married[one][ Mr.][ S.Appala]Raju of Yedlapalem village. She came back to her parents[about][ six (6)][ years]back andresidingat J.Gumadam Village. Learned Assistant[Government]Pleader would submit that on enquiry 6;y1CDS Supervisor[revealed][ that][ the]

documents produced by the respondent No.6 are genuine. Learned AssistantGovernment Pleader would submit that the Courtmaypassappropriateorders.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.6 would submitthat heISadopting the arguments of the learned Assistant Government Pleader andtheCourt may pass appropriate orders.

6. Considering the submissions made and a fair lookatthematerialplaced on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is some forcein the contentions raised by the petitioners before this Court,The reasonbeing, no contra material is placed on record to the documents filed by thepetitioners to show that the name of the respondent No.6 is included in thevoterlist of J.Gumadam village on the very date of her appointmentasAnganwadi Worker in J.Gumadam Village. There is also no dispute about thefact that the J.Gumadam Village and Yedlapalem Village are having twoseparate Anganwadi Centers. Such being the case, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 24.08.2007, the selection for the post of Anganwadi Worker shouldbe done when the person belongs to the same village. The respondent No.6might have bornin J.Gumadam Village but the fact remains that as on thedate of notification, she is married to one Mr.S.Appala Raju who is a native ofYedlapalem Village. That being so, considering her candidature for the post ofAnganwadi Worker in J.Gumadam Village is not sustainable.

7. In that view, the Writ Petitionis allowed. The respondent authorities aredirectedtoconsiderthecandidatureofthepetitionersforthepostofAnganwadi Worker in J.Gumadam Village as per the Governing[Rules][ and][ law]and take appropriate decision. The respondent authorities[can][ also][ consider]the case of the respondent No.6 to accommodate her as per her eligibility inother center.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/- K. TATA RAO//TRUE COPY//DEPUTY REGISTRAR

»'

To.

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, State ofAndhra Pradesh, ts Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, GunturDistrict.Andhra Pradesh, ts Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, GunturDistrict.

2. The District Collector-cum-Selection Committee Chairman, VizianagaramDistrict.District.

3. The Additional Joint Collector cum Nominated Chairperson[Of][ Selection]Committee, Vizianagaram District.Committee, Vizianagaram District.

4. The Project Director, District Woman ST, Child Development Agency,Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District.

5. The Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Gantyada, GantyadaMandal, Vizianagaram DistrictMandal, Vizianagaram District

6. One CC toSri Taddi Nageswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

8. One CC to Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, Advocate (OPUC)

9. Three C D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/04/2025

ORDER

WP.No.30068 of 2018

ALLOWING THE W.P.WITHOUT COSTS