Petitioners, ANM/MPHA(F) health workers seeking regularisation against a recruitment notification, withdrew the writ petition as infructuous; the court dismissed it on that submission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY. THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 537 OF 2022
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned Notification No.1/2019 dt.01.02.2019 of the 5*^ respondent and setaside/quashthesame by declaring the entire action of the respondents in taking steps to appoint the Asha Workers, 2"*^ ANMs, Anganwadi Workers ECANMs2009 etc., who are subordinates/juniors to the applicants as regular ANMs/MPHA(F) through notification, without appointing the applicants on regular basis or
working since 16 regularizing their services even though they have been and having selected through process of selection toinpursuanceof years state wide notification 2002 is as highly illegal,arbitrary,unjust,improper, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16, 21and311oftheConstitution of India and also contrary to various judicial pronouncements and the cases of the consequently direct the respondents to forthwith consider consequential applicants for regularizing as ANMs/MPHA(F) with all benefits.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances of the petition, the High Court may be stated in the affidavit filed in support O.A. as their claim is pleased to permit the applicant to file a common in the interests of justice. similar and common
: SRI UMASANKAR LOKANADHAM Counsel for the Petitioners
Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR SERVICES IV
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010576152022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3459]
WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHl JAGADAM PFTITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 537/2022 WRIT
Between:
T Seshukumari and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Chairman And District Collector and Others
...RESPONDENT{S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S);
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES IV
The Court made the following:
3
W.P.(AT).No.537 of 2022
ORDER:
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thecause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the writ petition (AT) has become infructuous.
Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition (AT) is dismissed as
infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingshallstandclosed.
Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECT ICER
To,
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED; 16/10/2024
ORDER
WP(AT).No.537 of 2022
DISMISSING THE WP(AT) AS INFRUCUTOUS WITHOUT COSTS
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Seshukumari and Others
The Chairman and District Collector, Srikakulam and Others
Sumathi Jagadam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
