1. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records appointing respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker of Bijwar Village, Utkoor Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, in pursuance of notification of respondent No.2, dated 05.12.2010, and interview, dated 18.04.2011, and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri P.Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M.Vijaya Kumar Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in the affidavit, are that notification dated 05.12.2010 was issued by respondent No.2 for appointment of Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village; that in response thereto, the petitioner, respondent No.3 and several others have applied for the said post; and that, thereafter, respondent No.3 was appointed as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village. 3.1. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 does not belong to Bijwar Village, therefore, one of the eligibility criteria i.e., the candidate should be resident of native Village i.e., Bijwar Village or daughter-in-law of that Village i.e., Bijwar Village, is not satisfied by respondent No.3 and hence, appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village is illegal and high handed. 3.2. It is further stated that though the petitioner secured second highest marks after respondent No.3, she satisfies all the eligibility criteria for appointment as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village. Complaining the illegal and high handed appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village, the petitioner made complaints to respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.1, but there was no response. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit were filed on behalf of respondent No.3 denying the allegations made in the writ affidavit that respondent No.3 is not a native of Bijwar Village and as such, she does not satisfy the requisite conditions in the notification and further, number of documents were filed to show that respondent No.3 has been residing in Bijwar Village, being a daughter-in-law and as such, the Writ Petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Counter is also filed on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein the impugned appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker of Bijwar Village was sought to be sustained.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 is neither a native of Bijwar Village nor daughter-in-law of Bijwar Village, as such, she does not satisfy the requisite criteria, i.e., the selected candidate should be daughter-in-law of that village/should be native of that Village, and hence, her appointment is illegal. He further submitted that as a consequence of illegal appointment of respondent No.3, the petitioner, who possess all the requisite criteria, was deprived of such appointment. He further submitted that the Voters list, Ration Card and Certificate issued by Tahsildar show that respondent No.3 belongs to Kollampally Village of Narayanpet Mandal and therefore, respondent No.3 does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village, inspite of the same, she was appointed and therefore, he prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that though the petitioner was a native of Kollampally Village, she was married to one Anjaneyulu Goud, R/o Bijwar Village in the year 2005 and since then, she has been residing in Bijwar Village. He further submitted that in support of her contention, respondent No.3 has filed number of documents, i.e., Voter’s Identity card of respondent No.3 and her husband, Nativity Certificate issued by the office of Tahsildar, Voters list, 2011 for 77-Maktal Constituency, in which Bijwar Village falls, MCP Card (Mother and Child Protection Card), locally known as the Maata Shishu Samrakshna Card) issued in the year 2011 to respondent No.3, were filed. Hence, the contention of petitioner that respondent No.3 is not daughter-in-law of Bijwar Village is false and baseless; that respondent No.3 satisfied all the eligibility criteria for appointment as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village, as mentioned in the notification and she has also secured higher marks than the petitioner, and as such, she was rightly appointed. Therefore, the impugned appointment order of respondent No.3 warrants no interference by this Court and the Writ Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, by referring to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, submitted that the authorities concerned have, after verifying the certificates of the candidates and those satisfy the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the notification, called the candidates for interview; that accordingly, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were also called for interview and in the interview, the Committee Members awarded marks based on their performance, in which respondent No.3 secured more marks than the petitioner and as such, she was appointed as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village. He further submitted that the District Selection Committee conducted the entire selection process fairly and transparently and approved the candidature of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village. He further submitted that the allegation of petitioner that the appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village was untenable, as she does not satisfy all the requisite criteria, is falsehood and baseless and as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and the pleadings and thoroughly perused all the material papers placed before this Court by both the parties.

10. The main ground of attack of the petitioner on the appointment of respondent No.3 as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village is that she is a native of Kollampally Village and her husband is also shown to be resident of Kollampally Village, as per the Civil Supplies Card (Ration Card), and as such, the condition stipulated in the impugned notification, dated 05.12.2010, that candidate should be a native of Bijwar Village or daughter-in-law of Bijwar Village is not satisfied.

11. The petitioner heavily relied upon the Civil Supplies Card (Ration Card), wherein the names of respondent No.3 and her husband are shown to be family members of Siddanola Anjamma, who is resident of Kollampalle District. In this regard, it is to be noted that the orders dated 23.7.2011 passed by Tahsildar declaring that respondent No.3 is not a native of Bijwar Village was challenged by respondent No.3 before the District Collector, who passed orders dated 23.09.2015, setting aside the orders of Tahsildar and confirmed that respondent No.3 is a native of Bijwar Village and accordingly, Residence Certificate was issued to respondent No.3 to that effect earlier by the Tahsildar on 13.12.2010 was confirmed as genuine and valid. The said fact was not disputed by the petitioner in her reply affidavit.

12. Further, respondent No.3 filed Voter’s Identity Card of herself and her husband, Nativity Certificate issued by the office of Tahsildar, Voters list, 2011 for 77-Maktal Constituency, in which Bijwar Village falls, wherein her name and the name of her husband were reflected, MCP Card (Mother and Child Protection Card), locally known as the Maata Shishu Samrakshna Card), issued to her in the year 2011, in proof of her residence at Bijwar Village. The authenticity of all these documents cannot be doubted and neither the petitioner disputed the same, therefore, in the light of all these documents, the stray document i.e., Civil Supplies Card produced by the petitioner cannot overweigh the other documents produced by respondent No.3.

13. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that respondent No.3 being daughter-in-law of Bijwar Village, thereby satisfying the condition stipulated in the notification, and having secured higher marks in the oral interview than the petitioner, as admitted by the petitioner herself in the writ affidavit, respondent No.3 was rightly appointed as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village and no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to respondent No.2 for such appointment.

14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove her contention that respondent No.3 is ineligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Teacher/Worker in Bijwar Village and accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.

15. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No costs.