AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner has called in question Annexure-A - an order appointing respondent No. 4 as an Anganawadi worker.
Earlier, the petitioner was selected by the respondent - authority as an Anganawadi worker by order dated 24.2.2010. The same was called in question by the respondent No. 4 before this Court in WP No. 21082/2010. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 14.1.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had filed WA No. 3358/2011. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 29.7.2011.
In pursuance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the matter was considered and a fresh order of appointment is issued to the respondent No. 4. The said order is called in question in this writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, this Court had directed to re-do the process of appointment of Anganawadi worker, but without doing so, the authority has issued the order of appointment to the respondent No. 4. He further contended that respondent No. 4 is not the resident of the village where the Anganawadi worker is appointed.
The 4th respondent is married to a person who is resident of the said village. She is a domicile of the said village by virtue of the marriage. Further, the respondent No. 4 has secured 64.86 marks as against the petitioner who has secured 60.96 marks. Having regard to the educational qualification and also the domicile, I find that the respondents have rightly appointed respondent No. 4. Hence, no grounds to interfere.
Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.