Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/11617/2013 of Chintala Kameswari Vs Government of India, on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11617/2013 Between: Chintala Kameswari ...PETITIONER AND Government of India and
APHC010403722013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY-FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 11617/2013
Between:
Chintala Kameswari
...PETITIONER
AND
Government of India and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.Nagendra Babu. U
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.A Samir Kumar Reddy (SC FOR CGSC)
2.Harinath N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA)
3.GP for Women Dev, Child Welfare
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
No representation for the petitioner today when the matter is called.
2. The petitioner challenging the proceedings dated 10.01.2013 whereby the 4[th] respondent issued proceedings appointing the 5[th] respondent as Anganwadi Health Worker.
3. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner also applied for the post of Anganwadi Heath Worker in pursuance of notification dated 30.01.2012.
The petitioner is said to have performed well in the selection process, however, the respondents No.1 to 4 have appointed the 5[th] respondent as Anganwadi Health Worker. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The respondents in their counter submitted that the selection committee has preferred the 5[th] respondent based on the performance in the interview. The petitioner secured 36.70 marks and whereas the 5[th] respondent secured 37.17 marks. A copy of the merit list of the candidates is also filed along with the counter. It is submitted that the writ petition is filed basing on presumptions of the petitioner and that the selection process has been transparent. It is submitted that the 5[th] respondent is in service ever since the appointment.
5. In view of the above facts and circumstances and since now that the selection is completed in accordance with the merits, this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the said proceedings and thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
31.12.2024 KMS
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
KMS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
W.P.No.11617 of 2013
Date: 31.12.2024