Allowed

Gochi Ramanamma v. The District Collector

Telangana HC16 Dec 2004WP/20511/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the illegal selection of another candidate as an Anganwadi worker, the Court found that despite a decade-long pendency, the respondent filed no counter-affidavit on the day of hearing. Consequently, the allegations were deemed true, and the petition was allowed to direct the appointment of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the selection of the 4th respondent as Anganwadi worker is illegal; direction to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker; Wild Nisi made absolute.

Gochi Ramanamma Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 20511 of 1995

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gochi Ramanamma W/o. Masthanaiah, aged 22 years, Nukalapalem Village, Sullurpet Mandal, Nellore District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector Nellore.

¶12

2 The Selection Committee for Anganwadi Workers

¶13

rep. by its Dist. Convenor i.e. Programme Officer,

¶14

I.C.D.S., Nellore. 3 The Project Officer I.C.D.S., Sullurpet, Nellore District.

¶15

4 A.Rajeswaramma W/o. Chengaiah alias Israil R/o. N.T.R. Colony, Mannaru Polluru, Sullurpet Grampanchayat, Nellore District.

¶16

(The Writ Petition is dismissed for default

¶17

in respect of respondents 2 to 4, as per

¶18

Court Order dated 05.08.2004)

¶19

.....RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in selecting the 4th respondent herein as Anganwadi worker of Nukalapalem village, Sullurpet Mandal, Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and against the Rules of the Scheme called as Integrated Child Development Scheme and set aside the same. Consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of Nukalapalem village, Sullurpet Mandal, Nellore District.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE (NOT PRESENT)

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows:

¶26

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in selecting the 4^th responent herein as Anganwadi worker of Nukalapalem village, Sullurpet Mandal, Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and against the Rules of the Scheme called as Integrated Child Development Scheme and set aside the same. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of Nukalapalem village, Sullurpet Mandal, Nellore District.”

¶27

In spite of pendency of this writ petition for a period of one decade in this Court, the 1^st respondent did not choose to file counter and dispute the allegations made in the writ petition. There is no representation on behalf of the

¶28

1^st respondent when the matter is taken up today.

¶29

In the circumstances, the allegations, made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition go unrebutted, deemed to be true. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.

¶30

dsr

¶31

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

¶32

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this the

¶33

Thursday, Sixteenth day of December, Two thousand and four.

¶34

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶35

To:

¶36

1. The District Collector, Nellore

¶37

2. The District Convenor i.e. Programme Officer,

¶38

The Selection Committee for Anganwadi, ICDS, Nellore

¶39

3. The Project Officer, ICDS Sullurpet, Nellore District

¶40

4. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶41

5. Two CD copies.

Gochi Ramanamma v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gochi Ramanamma v. The 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

K.Venkata Reddy, Vs The District Cooperative Officer

V.Apparao Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

P.Nagender Vs a.P.State Housing Corporation

V.Pulla Reddy Vs a.P.Cooperative Union Ltd.

Siravuri Venkata Narayana Raju Vs The Govt of A.P.

P. Dasamantha Rao, Vs State of A.P.