Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. B Chinnagokaramma

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Mar 2022WA/338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order that directed respondents to consider a working Anganwadi Helper's case for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker despite her age being over the usual recruitment limit. The Court held that State Government instructions enhanced the age limit to 45 years specifically for existing Helpers, deeming it immaterial whether the petitioner appli

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs B… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.338 of 2022

¶3

ORDER : (per AVSS,J)

¶4

Respondents in W.P.No.20254 of 2021 are the appellants in the present Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent. Respondent in the present Writ Appeal is the writ petitioner, who filed the Writ Petition, assailing the proceedings in Rc.No.10/S.A/2021, dated 04.09.2021, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District-appellant No.5 herein. By way of the said proceedings, appellant No.5 herein, rejected the application of the writ petitioner, submitted for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker, on the ground of over age. Learned single Judge, by way of the order under challenge in the appeal, allowed the Writ Petition, directing the respondents in the Writ Petition to consider the case of the writ petitioner, for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker, Damagadda-2 Centre of Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.

¶5

Heard Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare Development,

¶6

¶7

AVSS,J & RC,J W.A.No.338 of 2022

¶8

appearing for the appellants and Sri G.Raju, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contends that the order passed by the learned single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition, is highly erroneous, contrary to law and also in violation of G.O.Rt.No.102, Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (ICDS-A1), dated 28.03.2011. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the age relaxation granted vide G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.03.2011, cannot be made applicable in the case of direct recruitment. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that as the petitioner herein did not submit any sort of representation to the authorities, seeking promotion, the learned single Judge ought not have directed the respondents in the Writ Petition to consider the case of the writ petitioner, by way of promotion. It is also the submission of the learned Government Pleader that any clarifications in the form of memoranda issued by the departments, which run contrary to the Governmental Orders are liable to be ignored.

¶10

¶11

AVSS,J & RC,J W.A.No.338 of 2022

¶12

On the contrary, Sri G.Raju, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, strongly resisting the Writ Appeal argues that, there is absolutely no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and in the absence of the same, no interference of this Court, under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent is warranted. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.03.2011, enhancing the age limit to 45 years, in respect of Anganwadi Helpers for appointment as Anganwadi Workers, as such, the order passed by the learned single Judge, directing to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner by any stretch of imagination cannot be faulted.

¶13

In the above back drop, now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent is - “Whether the order passed by the learned single Judge, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court?”

¶14

It is absolutely not in controversy that the writ petitioner/respondent herein has been working as Anganwadi Helper, since 2016, and in response to the notification issued by the Child Development Project Officer-

¶15

¶16

appellant No.5 herein, inviting applications for the posts of Anganwadi Workers and Mini Anganwadi Workers, the respondent herein submitted her application. A copy of the said notification is filed along with the Writ Appeal as material paper. For the purpose of adjudication of issue on hand, Clause No.2 of the said notification is important and relevant. According to the said clause in the notification, the applicants as on 01.07.2021, should have completed 21 years and must not have completed 35 years. The fact remains that in respect of other Clauses, there is absolutely no dispute.

¶17

According to the instructions issued by the State Government, vide GO.Ms.No.21, Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 24.08.2007, a candidate applying for the posts of Anganwadi Worker should have completed 21 years of age and should not have completed 35 years of age as on 01.07.2021 of recruiting order. Subsequently, the State Government by way of issuing G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.03.2011, clarified the situation further in the following manner.

¶18

“G.O.Rt.No.102 Dated:28.03.2011

¶19

Read the following:

¶20

1. Govt. Circular Memo No.3207/ICDS.A1/98, Dt:23-12-98

¶21

2. G.O.Ms.No.21, WD, CW & DW (ICDS.A1) Deptt., Dt:24-08-2007

¶22

3. G.O.Ms.No.38, WD, CW & DW (ICDS.A1) Deptt., Dt:03-112008.

¶23

4. From the Commissioner, WD & CW, Hyderabad, Lr.No.5771/K3/ 2006, Dt:01-11-2010.

¶24

ORDER :

¶25

¶26

AVSS,J & RC,J W.A.No.338 of 2022

¶27

In the G.O. 2^nd read above, orders were issued prescribing the Guidelines, Educational qualifications and age limit etc., for selection of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers in all ICDS projects in the State.

¶28

2. After careful consideration of the proposal submitted by the Commissioner, Women Development & Child Welfare, Hyderabad vide reference 4^th read above, Government enhance age limit to 45 years in respect of Anganwadi Helpers for appointment as Anganwadi Workers, provided she fulfils all other conditions and is physically fit to discharge the duties of Anganwadi Workers including conduct of pre-school and should have been regular in attending to her duties without any adverse reports.”

¶29

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)”

¶30

It is very much evident from a reading of the above instructions of the State Government issued vide G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.03.2011, that the State Government obviously taking into consideration, the grievances of the Anganwadi Workers working in the department, enhanced the age limit to 45 years in respect of the existing Anganwadi Helpers for appointment as Anganwadi Workers subject to fulfilment of all further conditions.

¶31

In the present case, admittedly, the writ petitioner is aged about 37 years. However, the fact remains that she is working as Anganwadi Helper. The language used in G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.03.2011, in vivid and clear terms shows that the Anganwadi Helpers, who are below the age of 45 years shall also be considered for appointment as Anganwadi Workers, subject to fulfilment of all other conditions. Coming to the order passed by the learned single Judge, after taking the above said aspects into

AVSS,J & RC,J

W.A.No.338 of 2022

consideration, categorically recorded a finding that it is immaterial as to whether the petitioner filed a fresh application for the post or sought for promotion.

¶36

In the considered opinion of this Court, the said finding recorded by the learned single judge by any stretch of imagination cannot be faulted and is strictly in accordance with the instructions of the State Government issued vide G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.03.2011.

¶37

In view of the above reasons, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the order under challenge in the present Writ Appeal. Hence, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

As a Sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶39

JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶40

_______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶41

16.03.2022 VSL

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. B Chinnagokaramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. B Chinnagokaramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nalukurthi Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Siddiqui Aided Schools Committee, Kurnool Dist Vs Adityanadh Das, Amaravati and 2 Others

M/S Garudadri Dall Mill Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Detla Srujan Bhupathi Varma Vs The Joint Secretary

Dr KhadeerAhamadShaik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr Zabiullah MD Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh