Disposed

Rentala Vijaya Lakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Sept 2022WP/24835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court drew attention to the violation of natural justice due to lack of notice or opportunity before discontinuing the services of petitioners serving as ANMs for 20 years, and issued a direction to continue their service.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to continue the petitioners in service as Multipurpose Health Workers considering their 20 years of service.

Rentala Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.24835 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the respondents in discontinuing the services of the petitioners as Multipurpose Health Workers in Health Centers, without issuing any notice or opportunity, in spite of their services is essential to the public, as illegal and arbitrary; consequently, directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in service as Multipurpose Health Workers, by considering their experience of 20 years.

¶5

Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-IV, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the material available on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of notification dated 29.07.2001 issued by the 4^th respondent for appointment to the post of ANMs, the petitioners have submitted their applications. After conducting the written test and oral interviews on 11.01.2002 and 12.01.2002 respectively,

¶7

¶8

they were selected and appointed as ANMs. The Standing Committee also passed Resolution No.974 on 16.3.2002 to that effect. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent-corporation issued posting orders to the petitioners to work as ANMs on contract basis and they have executed an agreement for one year.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, after some time, the 1^st respondent has entrusted the Health Centers in the entire State to Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited and they are paying salaries to the petitioners. After expiry of contract with the Apollo Hospitals, the 1^st respondent has been maintaining the Health Centers and paying salaries. However, without issuing any notice or opportunity, the respondents are not allowing the petitioners to work as ANMs in the Health Centers nor extended the contract period with Apollo Hospitals. Though the petitioners have approached the authorities on several occasions requesting to continue them in Health Centers, they have not taken any action so far. The action of the respondents in discontinuing their services, without issuing any notice or opportunity, is illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

As can be seen from the material available on record, the petitioners are working as ANMs since 20 years and their services are essential in the Health Centers. Without issuing any

¶11

¶12

notice or giving an opportunity to the petitioners, the respondents cannot discontinue their services, which is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶13

In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others¹ regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus:

¶14

“14.The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

¶15

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.” (emphasis supplied).

¶16

The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the

¶17

Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here.

¶18

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners in service

¶19

as Multipurpose Health Workers, in view of long length of service

¶20

AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998

¶21

¶22

put in by them in Health Centers, as the respondents have not

¶23

issued any notice or opportunity to the petitioners to defend their

¶24

case, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission

¶26

stage. No costs.

¶27

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶28

____________________________ Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶29

Date: 01.09.2022. HS

¶30

¶31

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶32

Writ Petition No.24835 of 2022

¶33

Date: 01.09.2022

¶34

Rentala Vijaya Lakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rentala Vijaya Lakshmi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.v.G.K.Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mallireddy Ramu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B Muna Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Vinayathulla, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chintham Harish Babu, Vs The District Registrar (Registration and Stamps)

M.Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh