The High Court · 2025

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social welfare, 2. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderbad. 3. The Project Director, Child Devlopment Project (Anganwadi), 0/o. District 4 Pamavth Srivali, W/ o. Ramavath Nagesh, Aged about 22 years, R/o. 6-52, Collector office, Lakdikapool, Hyderbad Balu Thanda, Apparedypally, lrlandgul [r.4andal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Wrrt of A,4andamus declaring the actron of lhe Respondent No. 1 to 3 in appointing the Respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker, Balu Thanda, Madgul Mandal Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner has AnganwadiWorker lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High c rurt may be preased to direct the Respondent No. i to 3 not to give posting orc ers to the Respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker, Baru Thanda, madgur Manda Ranga Reddy District lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in th,) circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High colrrt may be pleased to extend the stay granted on 13-03-201g jn W.p. No. g142 cf 2O1g Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. p. S. p. SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: Smt. G. VIJAYA KUMARI, AGP FOR WOMEN DEVEI-OPMENT AND SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. SRINIVIAS RAC) The Court made the following: ORDER : 1 wp 8142 2O1a NBK, J THE HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.8142 of 2018 ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that she is a permanent resident of Balu -I'handa, Madgul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent Nos. I to 3 issued a notification in January 20 18 lor recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner submitted her application on 04.01 .201 8. l.l The further case of the petitioner is that she secured 380 marks in the SSC exarnination, whereas Respondent No.4, who also applied tbr the same post, secured only 230 marks. Both the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 belong to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. In the provisional list of applicants, Respondent No. 4 was shown at Serial No. 17, while the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 19. However, in the final list of selected candidates published at the Mandal Office in February 20 18, Respondent No. 4 was shown as selected for appointment.

1.2 The grievance of the petitioner is that the appointment to the post olAnganwadi Worker ought to have been made strictly on the basis of rnerit as reflected in the SSC marks. The petitioner contends that, having secured higher marks than Respondent No. 4, she was more meritorious and therelore entitled to be appointed. Upon being informed of Respondent No. 4's selection, she submitted a representation to the authorities on

26.02.2018. However, she was orally informed that her candidature was not considered on the ground that she was not residing in Balu'I'handa at the relevant time. The petitioner explains that her absence fiom Ralu Thanda 2 !- wp 8142 2018 NBK, ] was temporary and due to genuine medical and personal reasons. She had gone to her parents' house in Kandukur, Ranga Reddy District, in connection with her pregnanc) and delivery, and gave birth to a male child on

08.0 I .20 18. She assefts that this temporary relocation canrot be construed to mean that she had lost her status as a resident of llalu T'handa. The petitionel contends that the action of the respondent; in denying her appointment despite her merit, and without giving her at-r opoortunity to explain her position, is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved thereby, she has filed the present writ lre tition.

2. Heard Sri P.S.P. Surcsh Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. G. Vijava Kr-urari, lcamed Assistant Government P cadel for Women Developmenr and Chitd Wellare. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner made submissio r:; in line with the

3. writ altidavit and furrher contended that the petitioner is a resident of Balu Thanda. [n suppolt ol'this, a residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar was frled. The petitioner is a morc meritorious candidate than Respondent No. 4. 'l'hcrcfbre, it is requcsted that this Court direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Batr 'thanda, Madgul Mandal. Rrngr Redth District.

4. fhe leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader, relyir.Lg on the counter affldavit, strbmitted that thc- appointment of Anganwadi Workers shall be based on SSC rnerit. and the candidate must reside in th: sanre habitation rvhere the Anganrvacii centre is located.

5. In the prescnt case, thc petitioner produced a resiclencc cerlihcate issued by the 'I'ahsilclar stating that she is a resident of tsalu Thanda. I wp 4142 2O1a NBK,I However, as per Circular Memo No. 4207[ICDS-3/20 I 6, dated t I .04.2017 , issued tiy the Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, a physical verification was conducted by the Child Development Project Officer, Amangal Project. During the verification, it was rcvealed that the petitioner was not residing in Balu Thanda.

5.I Statements from the villagers of Balu Thanda confinned that the petitioner does not reside in the village. Fufther, the local ration dealer stated that thc petitioner does not possess a ration card lrom Balu 'fhanda. Additionatly, Smt. Jangamma, the Mini Anganwadi Teacher in charge at Balu Thanda, stated that she had not seen the petitioner during her survey since 0l .09.2015.

5.2 Srnt. K. Latha, Anganwadi Teacher of Balaj inagar, deposed that the petitioner has been residing in Balajinagar village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District since 2016. The petitioner's name was enrolled in the Take-Home Ration (THR) register, and food was provided to her from the Anganwadi Centre in Balajinagar from 2016 to December 2017. I I

5.3 Moreover, the petitioner's Aadhaar card shows that her address was changed only recently, on 04.01.2018, from Balajinagar village to Balu Thanda, suggesting that the change was made intentionally to meet the etigibility criteria for the post. The petitioner's delivery ce(ificate from PI [C Kandukul also records her residence as Balaj inagar, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. These facts collectively indicate that the petitioner has not been a genuine resident of Balu Thanda, but rather claimed residence thcre for the purpose of securing appointment as an Anganwadi Worker. 4 wp 8142-2018 N8K, - ' ln vierv of the fbrcgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

6. opinion that the petitioner has lailed to establish her contirtttous residence in Balu Thanda. which is a mandatory requirement fot seler:tion as an Anganwadi Workcr, as per the applicable govemment lluidelines. Mere production of a residence certificate, in the face of r:ontrary evidence obtained through physical verification, cannot be consi<lered sufficient to establish eligibitity. The records clearlv indicate that the t,etitioner had been residing in Balaj inagar tbr a signiticant period and had altered her address shortly befbre subrnitting her application, rvhich raises se -i,tus doubts about the genuineness of her claim. Further, no procedural inlrnnity or violation ofnatural justice has been made out on the part of the resprtndents. Accordingly, thc writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending 7 . miscellaneous applications, ilany, shalI stand closed. ,r o^ o*' ' ;lffnYYt 33'tT [t[ (_? SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CC to SRI P S P SURESH KUMR' AQyl"."J' IOPUCI 2. Two CCs to cp FoR w6ili-N"D'rvEioprrrrrUi Auo'sOctAL WELFARE ' 'Fi;ia;;,1 for tne State oi ietangana at Hyderabad.lCUTl 3 ci;;461; ini x SnrNrvns RAb Advocate IoPUC' 4. Two CD CoPies BIV TKS Yk HIGH COURT J DATED:0210712025 ORDER WP.No.8142 of 2018 I Hf sr4 15. fr 1 (t 1;,,1 G MI ,6 €) 2 I o3:'::119L 1O DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^t -qei b -y "oY \t,<4 ,(r\ \c ,b'