Panta Rathnamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in cancelling the appointment order issued to the Petitioner for the post of 'Anganwadi Helper (Aaya)' in Proceeding No.95/SA/2019^{dated22.06.2019} vide proceedings Endk.No. 1/2019- 20/1 CDS. Rajampet^{dated03.07.2C19}

¶19

%

¶20

issued by the 4th Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, apart from being in gross violation of principles of natural justice , and in violation of Art.14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India en i Consequently set aside the proceedings Endt.No.1/2019- 20/1 CDS.Rajampet dated 03.07.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent, and consequently, direct the Respondents to issue fresh appointment orders to the Petitioner for the post cf 'Anganwadi Helper (Aaya)'.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to fill-up (1) vacancy of Anganwadi Helper (Aaya)' in the 3rd & 4th Respondents, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the proceedings Endt.No. 1/2019-20/1 CDS.Rajampet dated 03.07.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2070

¶26

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Women and Child Welfare Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶27

The Director of Women and Child Welfare, Andhra Pradesh.

¶28

The Project Director, Integrated Child Development Services/ Scheme, Rajampeta, Kadapa District.

¶29

The Child Development Project Officer, Kadapa District.

¶30

The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa^Town

¶31

...Petitioner/Respondents

¶32

AND

¶33

Panta Rathnamma, W/o K. Nagarjuna R/o. Galivaripalli Village, Rajampeta Mandal Kadapa District.

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 21.08.2019in WP.No. 11703/2019.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶39

The Court made the following order:

¶40

vs

¶41

APHC010259782019

¶42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶43

[3396]

¶44

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶45

MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶46

PRESENT

¶47

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO: 11703/2019

¶49

Between;

¶50

1.PANTA RATHNAMMA, W/0 K. NAGARJUNA RIO. GALIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, RAJAMPETA MANDAL KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶51

...PETITIONER

¶52

AND

¶53

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶54

2.THE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶55

3.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/ SCHEME, RAJAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶56

4.THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶57

5.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KADAPA DISTRICT KADAPA TOWN

¶58

...RESPONDENT(S);

¶59

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶60

2

¶61

1.NASHWANI KUMAR

¶62

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶63

1.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶64

2.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP)

¶65

3

¶66

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶67

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution

¶68

of India with the following prayer;

¶69

“.....to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ^of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in cancelling the appointment order issued to the Petitioner for the post of 'Anganwadi Helper (Aaya)'ⁱⁿ Proceeding No.95/SA/2019 dated 22.06.2019 vide proceedings Endk.No.112419-2011 CDS. Rajampet dated 03.07.2C19 issued by the 4th Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction, apart from being in gross violation of principles of natural justice, and in violation of Art. 14, 19(1)^and21 of the Constitution of India end Consequently set aside the proceedings Endt.No.1/201920/1 CDS.Rajampet dated 03.07.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent, and consequently, direct the Respondents to issue fresh appointment orders to the Petitioner for the post of 'Anganwadi Helper (Aaya)' and pass ”

¶70

Heard Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramakrishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the notification dated 06.02.2019, the petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Helper. Thereafter, an interview was conducted on 26.02.2019 for the eligible candidates. The petitioner appeared for the said interview and she was selected for the post. On 08.03.2019, the petitioner^was

¶72

4

¶73

informed over the phone that she was selected and was^askedto collect the appointment letter on the same day. However,^dueto the ill health of her daughter, she could not collect the appointment letter. She also could not collect it on^thenexttwo days on account of public holidays. Thereafter, on^11.03.2019 she was informed that the election code was in operation^andno appointment orders could be issued. She once again^reached the office of the 3'"'^ respondent, who refused to issue any such appointment order on the ground that 45 days had elapsed^from the date of selection. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner^filedW.P. No. 9755 of 2019. This Court, vide order dated 24.07.2019, dismissed the said writ petition, giving liberty to challenge the order of the 4'*^ respondent cancelling the appointment^orderof the petitioner. Challenging the order dated 22.06.2019 issued by the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶74

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that after the petitioner was selected for the post of ‘Anganwadi Helper (Aaya)’, she was informed of her selection on^08.03.2019 and was asked to collect her appointment letter and report for duty at the designated place. However, she neither^collectedthe appointment letter nor reported for duty. After the^electioncode was lifted, the office issued another appointment letter^dated 22.06.2019, instructing the petitioner to report for duty within five

¶75

5

¶76

days at the office of the Project Director, I.C.D.S.,^Rajampeta, Kadapa District. Despite this, she failed to report^for duty. Therefore, it is submitted that since the petitioner^didnotreport within the stipulated five days, her appointment was^cancelledas per the proceedings in T.O. Endt No. 15/ICDS-Rajampet,^dated 28.06.2019.

¶77

Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioner was not available in the^villageatthe time of serving the order. Though she has a three-year-old^child, she has not availed any services from the Anganwadi^center. It is also stated that her name was marked as “migrated” in the survey register of the Anganwadi center. During the^inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner’s husband is employed in a software company in Bangalore, and that she is residing with him. As per G.O.Ms.No.21, WDCW&DW Department, dated 24.08.2007, candidates for the posts of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers must be local married women residing in the same village. Since the petitioner is not residing in the village, she is ineligible for the post of Anganwadi Helper. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material available on record, the petitioner was^informedover the phone that she had been selected and was asked^tocollect the appointment letter. Due to her daughter's ill health, the

¶78

6

¶79

petitioner could not collect the same. Even after being given another opportunity with a direction to report for duty within five days, she failed to do so. As the petitioner did not report for duty as directed, the order of selection was cancelled on^28.06.2019. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is^clear that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity to join the duty but failed to comply with the same. Hence, this^Courtdoes not find any reason or merit to interfere with the proceedings dated 22.06.2019 and this writ petition is liable to^bedismissed. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There^shallbe no order as to costs.

¶80

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶81

any, shall stand closed.

¶82

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT, RE^RAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER

¶83

To,

¶84