ERAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C. OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 4 filed application for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Kasandoddi Anganwadi Center. Considering the fact that no body has filed application for appointment as Anganwadi Worker, authorities have appointed the 4th respondent. After the appointment of 4th respondent was made, petitioner made representation as per Annexure -B on 17.07.2007 with an allegation that the 4th respondent is not from Kasandoddi Anganwadi Center but is from Kurkunda village. It is further alleged that the 4th respondent is appointed based on political influence. Based on the said allegations, it seems the Deputy Director of Women and Child Welfare Department, Raichur, conducted enquiry and has submitted the report as per Annexure -C dated 05.09.2007 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Raichur, for further orders. Since no action is taken, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner for setting aside the appointment of 4th respondent. Sri. Shivakumar Kalloor, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed application for her appointment as Anganwadi Worker; the said application is suppressed by the authorities; 4th respondent though is not from the place for which the Anganwadi Worker is to be appointed, is appointed.

(2.) THE enquiry report at Annexure -C on which the petitioner heavily relies clearly reveals that (in respect of Kasandoddi Anganwadi Center) none from Kasandoddi village have filed application for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. It is also mentioned in the very report that the 4th respondent is not from Kasandoddi village and since the petitioner is from scheduled caste she may be appointed as Anganwadi Worker, inasmuch as, she comes from Heera village which comes under Kasandoddi area. Since none from Kasandoddi had filed application for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker, authorities have thought it fit to appoint 4th respondent, who appears to be lone applicant. Nothing is produced by the petitioner's counsel along with the writ petition to show that she has filed an application for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. In the absence of other material on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy Director of Women and Child Welfare Department, Raichur. In view of the same, no interference is called for.