S Lal Bee Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S LAL BEE, W/O. SHAIK DADAPEERA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. ANGANWADI HELPER, (UNDER TERMINATION), CHITYALA -2 ANGANWADI CENTER, R/O. 2-63, CHITYALA VILLAGE, KRISHNAGIRI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE, ANGANWADI WORKERS/HELPERS, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶16

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶17

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT DHONE, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶18

THE SECTOR SUPERVISOR, KRISHNAGIRI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶19

2

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent vide proceedings Prog. No. 56/A/2023 dated 13.03.2023, terminating the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi helper as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and directing the respondents to reinstate/continue the petitioner as Anganwadi helper at Centre-2 of Chityala village, Krishnagiri Mandal, ICDS Project Dhone, Kurnool District and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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 suspend the impugned proceeding vide Prog. No. 56/A/2023, dtd.13-3-2023 and in the consequential notification(s), if any, in respect of appointment of a new Anganwadi helper in place of the petitioner for Anganwadi Centre-2 of Chityala village, Krishnagiri Mandal issued by the respondent authorities pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.SHEIKH NEHA HASSAN

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the order dated 13.03.2023, passed by

¶31

the 4^th respondent terminating the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Helper for Anganwadi Center-II, Chityala Villaoge, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

3

¶33

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Helper for Anganwadi Center-II, Chityala Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District vide proceedings dated December, 2006 by the Committee Chiarman/Collector, Kurnool District and ever since, she has been discharging her duties as Anganwadi Helper. While things stood thus, the impugned proceedings were issued to the petitioner terminating her services by the 4^th respondent-Child Development Project Officer.

¶34

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings dated 13.03.2023, issued by the 4^th respondent-Child Development Project Officer, Kurnool is not the competent authority. Infact, as per ICDS Project Rules, the competent authority is the District Selection Committee for appointments as well as termination of the services of Anganwadi Helpers. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions that while passing the impugned order, the respondents have not provided the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and have not served

¶35

any prior notice to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner herself submitted her explanation on 13.03.2023, but the same was also not considered properly and on the same day the impugned orders were passed. Hence, the impugned orders were contrary to procedure as well as against the principles of natural justice.

¶36

4

¶37

Reply to the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has made his submissions based on the averments made in the counter wherein it is clearly stated that after conducting the enquiry, the matter has been referred to the Selection Committee for taking the decision for absconding duties of the petitioner and the committee has examined the records and decided to terminate the services of the petitioner. The impugned proceedings dated 13.03.2023 is only the communication made by the 4^th respondent the decision of the Selection Committee. Hence, the impugned proceedings are well within the jurisdiction of the 4^th respondent authority. Further, as far as the consideration of the service of the notices are concerned, in the counter, it is specifically stated that though the respondents are trying to serve the notices, the petitioner has refused to receive the same. In the said circumstances, the respondents have left with no option, have conducted the preliminary enquiry and submitted the report to the competent authority and based on the records, the Selection Committee/competent authority has taken the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned orders are in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Rules of I.C.D.S Project.

¶38

Considering the submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter and also the decision of the authority with regard to the jurisdiction. On perusal of the impugned order, the matter has

¶39

5

¶40

been referred to the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee has taken a decision and the same was communicated to the petitioner through the 4^th respondent. As far as the opportunity is concerned, on perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, it is clearly discloses that the respondents have not considered her reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner on 13.03.2023. In the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the competent authority and submit her explanation with all the relevant records within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the competent authority shall consider the same and review the decision dated 13.03.2023 and pass fresh orders after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 15 days thereafter.

¶41