G. Gangamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

“…. .to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notification dated 11.12.2020 for selection of Anganwadi Workers, Mini Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers by changing the reservation for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Rayalappa Doddi Village in contrary to the earlier notification dated 13.11.2020 without cancelling the same is illegal, arbitrary, and against law and consequently direct the respondents to call for the interviews as per notification dated 24.11.2020, by setting aside the notification dated 11.12.2020….”

¶24

2

¶25

The Writ Petition No.265 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the

¶26

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶27

“…. .to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notification dated 11.12.2020 for selection of Anganwadi Workers, Mini Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers in Ananthapuramu District by changing the reservation for the post of Anganwadi Worker of Yerrampally Village in contrary to the earlier notification dated 13.11.2020 without cancelling the same is illegal, arbitrary, and against law and consequently direct the respondents to call for the interviews as per notification dated 24.11.2020, by setting aside the notification dated 11.12.2020….”

¶28

As the issue involved in both the writ petitions, they are being

¶29

taken up for hearing as well as disposal by way of this common order.

¶30

Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical,

¶31

therefore, W.P.No.255 of 2021 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

¶32

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is permanent native of Rayalappa Doddi Village, Brahmasamudram Mandal, Anantapuramu District and completed Intermediate in the year 2019. The 3^rd respondent issued notification dated 26.11.2019 for appointment of Anganwadi Workers, Mini Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers throughout the Anantapuramu District. In the said notification, no reservations are mentioned in respect to any village. The petitioner made an application to the authorities for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent sent interview letter in R.C.No.02/CDPO/2020, dated 24.09.2020 instructing the

¶33

3

¶34

petitioner to appear on 05.10.2020 at 10:00 A.M. before the Revenue Divisional Office, Kalyanadurgam with certain documents as mentioned in the said letter. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the authorities and attended the interview. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any information with regard to her selection. While things stood thus, without cancellation of earlier notification, the authorities issued another notification dated 13.11.2020 for the same post. In the said notification, Rayalappa Doddi Village is shown under O.C. Category. Having no other option, the petitioner applied for the said post and till date, the interview letter is not yet received. The respondent authorities again issued 3^rd notification dated 11.12.2020 for the same Anganwadi Workers, Mini Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers throughout the District. In the said notification, Rayalappa Doddi Village is shown under S.C. Category. The respondent authorities without calling interviews in respect to 2^nd notification, issued 3^rd notification calling the application for the said posts. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶35

The 4^th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the earlier notification dated 13.11.2020 has been cancelled due to administrative grounds only and it is not intentional and the entire recruitment process was done in the manner of Rule of Reservation prescribed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The recruitment of Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi Helpers was done as per

¶36

4

¶37

the roster points fixed in project level only. The contention of the petitioner that

¶38

the roster was intentionally changed is not correct. After thorough verification, the roster point has been changed from Open Category to S.T. Category and the same was published in revised recruitment notification issued on 11.12.2020 and the roster point was changed only on administrative reasons. Hence, the same is not contrary to the notification dated 13.11.2020 and the respondents have followed the 100 points rules of reservation as per G.O.Ms.No.7, WCD & SC (ICDS), dated 27.01.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.39, WCD & SC (ICDS) Department, dated 06.09.2011. The earlier notification dated 13.11.2020 had cancelled and the same has been intimated to the applicants through daily news papers. Further, the Employment notification has been given in daily news papers on 11.12.2020 for recruitment of Anganwadi Workers, Mini Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers, in response to the notification, the petitioner has been applied for the post without observing the change of roster point from O.C. to S.T and filed the present writ petition. As per the notification dated 11.12.2020, interview was conducted on 29.12.2020 and D.Prabhavati, ST Candidate was selected and appointment orders were issued on 07.01.2021 and D.Prabhavati was joined in duty as AWW in Anganwadi Center, Rayalappa Doddi Village, Brahmasamudram Mandal. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶39

The pleadings which are cited by the petitioner in W.P.No.255 of 2021, the same are adopted by the other petitioner in W.P.No.265 of 2021.

¶40

5

¶41

Heard Mr.Seshadri Golla, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, for the respondents.

¶42

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petitions, submits that, the respondent authorities without following the procedure and without cancelling the earlier notification ought not to have issued new notification for the same posts and that the respondents ought to have called for interviews in respect to the candidates who applied as per earlier notification. As per the new notification, the petitioners have lost their opportunity to the said posts, as the roster points were intentionally changed. Hence, the 2^nd notification dated 11.12.2020, which is issued in contrary to the earlier notification dated 13.11.2020 is illegal, arbitrary and against the law. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶43

Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavits, submits that, according to the notification dated 13.11.2020, the Rayalappa Doddi Village and Yeerampalli Villages were categorise as open competition for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Before final list is approved, as per the directions and orders of the District Collector, Ananthapuramu, the notification dated 13.11.2020 was cancelled vide proceedings No.ICDS/ATP/18, dated 11.12.2020 for the notifications from 13.11.2020 to 20.11.2020 for the reason

¶44

6

¶45

that several representations were received from public that in some places, where there is no population of SC/ST/BC categories for applying posts notified for the categories of SC/ST/BC categories with a direction to all CDPOs of 17 ICDS Projects have to again verify the roster point registers and allot the roster points. In pursuance of the above directions, the earlier notification dated 13.11.2020 was cancelled by Project Director, DW & CDA, Ananthapuramu for the reason that there was an error crept in by selecting the Rayalappa Doddi Village and Yeerampalli Villages as reserved for open category, but in re-casting of the reservations, the vacancies falls under S.T. and BC-C Categories. Since the petitioners falls under OC Categories, they are not eligible for selection and hence their applications were not considered. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶46

10. Perused the record.

¶47

On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, admittedly the petitioners submitted applications for the appointment of Anganwadi Workers in response to the notification dated 26.11.2019. They subsequently appeared for document verification and have been waiting for the joining letter. Later, another notification dated 13.11.2020 was issued with O.C. reservation category. The petitioners applied again for the said post. Following this, the respondents have issued a notification dated 11.12.2020, revising the roster points and changing them for administrative reasons.

¶48

7

¶49

Further, the respondents cancelled the earlier notification dated 13.11.2020 and the same was intimated to the applicants through daily news papers. As per the notification dated 11.12.2020, interviews were conducted and candidates were selected for the said posts.

¶50

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, there are no grounds to interfere in these matters. Hence, this Court found no merits in the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶51

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶52

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶53

stand closed.

¶54

__________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶55

Date : 07.02.2025 BMS

G. Gangamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Gangamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polaki Parameswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gumma Krishnaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kovuri Kondaiah Achari, Vs .The State Of Andhra Pradesh

K Saritha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Umadevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Venkata Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh