Bharathi vs The District Collector, The District Project Officer, The Child Welfare Project Officer, Sivagangai Union and Nalayini

P. Jyothimani, J.—Admittedly, for the post of Anganvadi Assistant the conditions required for appointment are that (i) the person should know read and write; (ii) female alone are eligible to be appointed; (iii) the person must have completed 25 years and not more than 40 years and (iv) preference should only be given to local residents.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner, who has also participated in the interview for Anganvadi Assistant along with the 4th respondent, challenges the impugned order passed by the first respondent District Collector dated 21.11.2009, by which the District Collector has appointed the 4th respondent as Anganvadi Assistant.

It is not in dispute that both the petitioner and the 4th respondent are local residents. While the petitioner was aged 34 years at the time of appointment of the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent was aged 32 years. The only ground on which the challenge is made is that the petitioner is old in age and therefore, she should have been given preference. By a reading of the G.O. Ms. No. 203 Social Welfare Department dated 19.08.2005, which enables the appointment of Anganvadi Assistant it is clear that there is no such stipulation that the old age person should be given appointment but, it is stated that the person to be eligible for appointment herself not be aged below 25 and not be aged above 40 years.

The further case of the petitioner is that she has got Diploma in Pre-Primary (Kindergarten) Teacher Training, which she has completed in the year 2007, which the 4th respondent does not possess. The said diploma is not necessary for appointment as Anganvadi Assistant. In such view of the matter, simply because the petitioner is more qualified, it cannot be a ground to set aside the selection of the 4th respondent, when admittedly the 4th respondent is also qualified for the said post. In the service matters, unless the G.O. stipulates specifically that old age person should be given appointment, it is not possible for this Court to give such a direction. There is no merit in the Writ Petition.

Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2010 is dismissed.