WP/5040/2022 of PAIDI SANDHYA Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2024

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary,Women Development and Children Welfare Department,[Secretariat]Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.Women Development and Children Welfare Department,[Secretariat]Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

2. Director, Women Development and Children Welfare Department Andhra Pradesh. Srikakulam Srikakulam District

3. District Collector, and Chairperson DW and CDA, Srikakulam[District.]

4. Project Director, DW and CDA, Srikakulam District.

5. Child Development Project Officer, I.C.D.S. Project Officer, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District

6. Annepu Soundarya, W/o Hanumanthu Ramesh, Aged about 25 yearsResident of Sattaravupeta, Dandulakshmipuram, Polaki Mandal,Srikakulam-532 430Resident of Sattaravupeta, Dandulakshmipuram, Polaki Mandal,Srikakulam-532 430

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedingsin15/2021dated04-11-2021 issued by the 5^^ Respondent is wholly illegal, arbitrary, without ^application of mind violative of Articles 14,16 and 21of the Constitution ofIndiabesidesbeingviolativeofprinciplesofnaturalJusticeandconsequently declare that the petitioner is entitles to be appoint in serviceas Anganwadi WorkeratSatravupeta,ICDSProject,Narasannapeta,Srikakulam District.

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the proceedings in 15/2021 issued by the 5*^ respondentwith a direction to the Respondents by disposing of the representation of thepetitioner, dated 16.12.2021.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VISESWAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR SERVICES

II &

GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT & CHILD WELFARE

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI UMASANKAR LOKANADHAMThe Court made the following: ORDER

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.5040 of 2022

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION No.5040 of 2022

%31.12.2024

Between:

Paidi Sandhya, W/o Vadise (late) Venkatesh

... Petitioner

And

$ State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Women Development & Children Welfare Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaaravathi and 5 others.

.... Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner;

SriP. Visweswara Rao

! Counsel for Respondents;

Sri Umasankar Lokanadham

G.P. for Women Dev Child Welfare

G.P. for Services-ll

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred;

APHC010079472022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI[3310](Special Original Jurisdiction)TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOURPRESENTTHE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 5040/2022

Between:Paid! Sandhya...PETITIONERANDState Of Andhra Pradesh and Others...RESPONDENT(S)Counsel for the Petitioner:1.P VISESWAR RAOCounsel for the Respondent(S):1.UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM2.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE3.GP FOR SERVICESIIThe Court made the following:ORDER:This Writ Petitionis filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particulariy[one][ in][ the][ nature][ of][ Writ][ of]Mandamus declaring the proceedingsin15/2021dated 04.11.2021issued by the 5thRespondent 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 naturalJustice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitles to be appointed in serviceas Anganwadi Worker at oatravupnia, ICDS Project,Narasannapeta,[Srikakulam][ District]and pass....”Mandamus declaring the proceedingsin15/2021dated 04.11.2021issued by the 5thRespondent 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 naturalJustice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitles to be appointed in serviceas Anganwadi Worker at oatravupnia, ICDS Project,Narasannapeta,[Srikakulam][ District]and pass....”

Notification was issued by 5th2.The facts of the case are that ain the month of September, 2021 for appointment torespondent authorities in.theAnganwadiKendrasinthepostofAnganwadiworkeracrossof the same, the petitionerNarasannapeta, Srikakulam District.In pursuancenumber of candidates and later theapplied for the said post among a largetoattendon28^^callletterforinterview/selectionrespondentissuedof Project Director, DW & CDA, Srikakulam but itSeptember 2021 at the officeinterview/selection to attend on 8thwascancelled and another call letter forof Project Director, DW & CDA,October,2021at lO’.OO Mrsat Officehad performed to the best satisfaction of theSrikakulam.In that, the petitionerinterview Board.Through RTl application, informationwassecuredandhaving highest marks among allbased upon that information, the petitioner isapplied for Anganwadi Worker at Satravupeta villagethe candidates who haveof ICDS project, Narasannapeta. However, the petitioner is not figuredin finalhaving highest marks in eligibiiity iist.it is furthermerit list despite sheisrespondent vide 15/2021stated that the 5respondent appointed the 6only SSC qualification and less marks than thedated 4.11.2021 who is havingdone only under political pressure.Thepetitioner in eligibility list and it waswithout taking into consideration themain grievance of the petitioner is thatandmarks,appointmentof6'^certificate possessedbythepetitionerSatravupetaofICDSProject,AnganwadiworkeratrespondentasNarasannapet, Srikakulam. is wholly illegal ahd arbitrary.

3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.Whiledenying all the allegations made in the petition, stated that, the call letters alsosenttotheeligiblecandidateswhohaveappliedforthepostsofAWW/AWH/MINI AWW for appearingtotheinterview. Out of 16eligiblecandidates, 3 candidates absent, and remaining 13 eligible[candidates][ have]been attended for interview on 08.10.2021. The District Selection Committeeconducted interview and selected Smt. Annepu Soundarya by the Committeeas she got highest marks (66) in interview and issued appointment order toSmt. Annepu. Soundarya vide proceedings Rc.No.15/2021,dt:14-11-2021after 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 AnganwadiWorkerorMiniAnganwadiWorkeror AnganwadiHelpertheSelectionCommittee decision is the final.It is further stated that the petitioner's requestto 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]10thclass are the criteria for the AWW post's selection[awarded]at the time ofinterview by the Members of Selection Committee, according[to][ G.O.Ms.No.18]WDCW & DW, ICDS dated15.05.2015.Itisfurther stated that thewritpetitioner did not get more marks than the 6th respondent[herein,][ apart][ from]that the respondent has shown tables form how the writ[petitioner] and 6threspondent got marks as per their educational as well[as][ interview][ marks][ for]perusal as under:

S.No.NameMarks secured1Paidi Sandhya642Annepu Soundarya66

In view of the above marks awarded by the Committee,[appointed][ the]6*^ respondent as Anganwadi Worker of the Sattaravupeta[Village][ Centre][ and]6'*^ 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 ServicesII andSri UmasankarLokanadham, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while[reiterating][ the]contents madein 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 bytheSelectionCommitteeforselectionof AnganwadiWorkersand Anganwadi Helpers. The statement reads as under;

8. On a perusal of the above, the criteria for the[AWW][ Post][ selection][ is]only 10“" Class Pass.So, the petitioner has already[passed][ 10*''][ Class][ and]applied for the said post.Moreover, as seen from the[Eligibility][ List][ for][ the]post of Anganwadi Worker of ICDS Project-Narasannapeta,itisobservedthat, the petitioner got total marks 60, whereas the[6"'][ respondent-Annepalli]Soundarya got only 50 marks.

9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that, withouttaking into consideration of the certificates possessed[by][ the][ petitioner][ and]her marks, the respondents have appointed the 6"' respondent[as][ Anganwadi]Worker at Satravupeta of ICDS Project, whichis highly[illegal][ and][ arbitrary.]

Moreover. for substantiating the evidence of petitioner, learnedcounsel for thethat the petitioner possessedthe documents shownpetitioner has relied onit clearly showsthat oralqualifications, but. on a perusal of the above, the respondents have filed counterinterview marks are not added. Whereasincludes the oral interview marks for all thealongwith the Eligibility List, whichparticipants.

seenfromtheEligibilityList furnished by the10.Therefore,asobserved that, after adding Oralrespondents along with their counter,it isherein gottotalmarks‘64’ andthe 6thinterviewmarks,thepetitionerrespondent got total marks 'ee' and therefore, asperthe contention of thethe total marks, the 5'respondent had appointed therespondents, basing on6*'' respondent who got highest marks.

11. In viewof the foregoing discussion and on perusing the materialoninstant writ petition and the sameISrecord, this Court found no merit in theiliable to be dismissed.

is dismissed. There shall be no order12.Accordingly, the Writ Petition isif any pending, shall standas to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applicationsclosed.

Sd/-K.SRiNlVASA RAJUassistant registrar

92r

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

to the Hon’ble DR copy(For His Lordships Kind Perusal)

One fair copy

To,1.one CC to Sri P. Viseswar Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

1.2. TwoCCS to GPGP for for Services- women Development 11, High Court & of Child Andhra Welfare, High Court2. TwoCCS to GPGP for for Services- women Development 11, High Court & of Child Andhra Welfare, High Court

3. Two CCS toof Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

V.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDERWP.No.5040 of 2022

X2 9 JAN 202560/;¥^Current Section

DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS