Dismissed

Sakunala Sudhamani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2024WP/23699/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection for Anganwadi Worker post due to age, citing unilateral notification change. Court dismissed petition as infructuous since another candidate was selected and not made a party to this writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Sakunala Sudhamani, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010154972014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3457]

¶5

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 23699/2014

Between:

Sakunala Sudhamani,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By District Collector and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.T V S KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV-CHILD WELFARE(AP)

¶19

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

ORDER:-

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

The petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Worker, and the respondents rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that the petitioner is over-aged.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents issued a notification dated 27.02.2014, whereby the age cut-off date was 01.07.2013, by which date the prospective applicant should not have crossed 35 years of the age.

¶26

However, the respondents unilaterally issued another notification dated 05.08.2014, and the cut-off date was taken as 01.07.2014. It is submitted that the petitioner could not be qualified on account of the unilateral cancellation of the first notification and issuance of the second notification after a period of six months. It is submitted that the petitioner ought to have been considered, and the respondents have wrongfully rejected the application.

¶27

The respondents in their counter submits that the petitioner’s Date of Birth, as mentioned in the marks list of the 10th class, was taken as 12.06.1979, as the petitioner has already crossed the age of 35 years was not considered. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s husband is a Government employee, working as a teacher at the Government Elementary School in Ganganapally, Kasinayana Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶28

¶29

It is not in dispute that the respondents have selected the Anganwadi Worker in the place of the petitioner who is not made a party to the Writ Petition. On these grounds, no further orders are required in this Writ Petition.

¶30

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

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

¶32

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶33

21.12.2024 PNS

Sakunala Sudhamani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakunala Sudhamani, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector

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

Dogga B.B.Appadu, Vs The Regional Joint Director

B.Mallikarjuna, Kurnool District Vs the State Project Director, & 2 Others

Savanna Subramanyam Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

The Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, Vs The State of a.P., Rep by its Secretary

K. Rosaiah, Prakasam Dist & Another Vs V.C. & M.D., Apsphcl, Hyd & 3 Ot

Dr.N. Venkata Subba Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh