Allowed

K. Rajeswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Dec 2012WP/28357/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a notice for re-interview for an Anganwadi worker post. The petitioner was already appointed. The Court set aside the notice based on the validity of the petitioner's prior appointment and dismissed conflicting selection orders due to intervening interim stays.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice and consequential appointment order dated 18.11.2010 set aside; writ petition allowed.

K. Rajeswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

W.V.M.P.No.1388 of 2011 & W.V.M.P.No.3378 of 2012 IN

¶3

W.P.M.P.No.36186 of 2010

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.28357 of 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No.28357 of 2010

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

When the vacate stay petitions filed by official respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the unofficial respondent No.3 came up for hearing, both sides agreed for disposal of the main writ petition itself.

¶8

2. Heard Sri U.Muralidhar Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri M.V.Narasimham, the learned counsel for respondent No.3. There is no representation for respondent No.4.

¶9

3. The petitioner Smt.K.Rajeswari was initially appointed as Anganwadi worker for Gattupalli main centre by the second respondent Project Director through his order dated 04.01.2007. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a notice dated 09.11.2010 to the petitioner calling upon her to again attend an interview to be conducted for selection to the said post. In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner is questioning the said notice dated 09.11.2010 as illegal on the ground that when she was already appointed there cannot be any selection again for that post.

¶10

4. In the impugned notice dated 09.11.2010, a reference is made to an interim order dated 29.10.2010 passed in C.C.No.1117

¶11

of 2010 in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 and the said notice shows that it was issued pursuant to that order in contempt case. This has got significance in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the third respondent argued the matter at length making a detailed reference to the previous writ petitions and the aforementioned contempt case and the orders passed therein which are all mentioned in the impugned notice dated 09.11.2010. The said orders would make the picture clear on the fact situation and it is not necessary to set out separately all the facts. Further the respective contentions of the parties also stand answered in the said previous cases. Hence the said cases and orders passed therein are set out as that would be sufficient to dispose of this writ petition as the controversy already stands resolved in the above cases especially C.C.No.1117 of 2010 itself.

¶12

5. Earlier the third respondent B.Lakshmamma and three others viz., V.Manoranjitham, J.Mariyamma and P.Parimala jointly filed W.P.No.1287 of 2007 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to consider their cases for conversion as Anganwadi workers from the posts of ECE Instructors (Early Child Education Instructors) in their respective places where the Angnwadi Centres are started by merging the ECE Centres under Integrated Child Development Schemes in view of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 02.05.2000.

¶13

6. All the said Anganwadi centres are in Jaladanki Mandal of Nellore District and the present Gattupalli main centre in which the petitioner was earlier appointed as Anganwadi worker is part of them and the third respondent is also laying claim for that post. It is not necessary to go into other details, but it would be sufficient

¶14

to note that the case of the third respondent and others in the aforesaid W.P.No.1287 of 2007 and batch is that all of them earlier worked as ECE Instructors at the relevant ECE centres and therefore their cases have to considered for the posts of Anganwadi workers in terms of G.O.Ms.No.49 referred to supra at the said places and the details are given in the orders in previous cases. W.P.No.1287 of 2007 and seven other writ petitions were disposed of by a common order on 16.09.2008 by this Court giving the following directions.

¶15

“Under those circumstances, the petitioners are directed to make a detailed representation to the respondents seeking conversion of their respective ECE Centres to that of Anganwadi Centres as per G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 2.5.2000 within a period of six weeks from today. On making such representation, the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same by considering the fact as to whether G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 2.5.2000 has been superceded or not. While considering the matter, the respondents shall also take into consideration the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.18585 of 2003 dated 12.11.2003 and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Until such time, no other person shall be appointed in the Anganwadi centres as claimed by the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.”

¶16

By the date of the above order, it may be noted, petitioner was already appointed on 04.01.2007.

¶17

7. Pursuant to the order in the above batch of writ petitions, the second respondent considered the matter and by his order dated 08.10.2008 rejected the case of third respondent and the others informing them that the relevant posts of Anganwadi workers including the post in which the petitioner was appointed were already filled up.

¶18

8. Thereafter, the third respondent and three others referred to supra, filed W.P.No.14017 of 2009 questioning the above order dated 08.10.2008. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.11.2009 setting aside the aforesaid order dated 08.10.2008 giving further directions to consider the cases of the third respondent and the others. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 reads as follows.

¶19

“As could be seen from the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000, if all factors of recruitment to the posts of Anganwadi Workers are equal, preference shall be given to the ECE Instructors for appointment to the post of Anganwadi workers. Having considered an identical issue, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18585 of 2003 held that the petitioner therein, who worked as ECE Instructor, was entitled for preferential treatment in the matter of absorption whenever an Anganwadi Centre was opened. Thus, it is clear that what all required is to give preference to ECE Instructors in appointment of Anganwadi Workers.

¶20

Having held so, this Court disposed of W.P.No.1287 of 2007 with a specific direction to the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners. Admittedly the said order has become final. In the circumstances, the respondents are bound to implement the same. Rejecting the claims of the petitioners for consideration by giving preference as provided under G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000 merely on the ground that all the posts of Anganwadi Workers were filled up by the date of the order of this Court is apparently in violation of the order this Court apart from being contrary to the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000. Since the order in W.P.No.1287 of 2007 has become final, the respondents ought to have considered the cases of the petitioners through a duly constituted Selection Committee so as to decide whether they are suitable for absorption as provided in G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000. Since no such exercise was made, the impugned order dated 08.10.2008 being arbitrary and illegal is liable to be set aside.

¶21

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.10.2008 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the candidatures of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law strictly in accordance with the directions in W.P.No.1287 of 207, dated 16.9.2008 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this

¶22

order. No costs.”

¶23

It would be clear from the above order that this Court only directed the concerned authority to consider the cases of the third respondent and others as indicated above.

¶24

9. Thereafter, the third respondent filed C.C.No.1117 of 2010 complaining that the order passed in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 has been violated by the concerned respondents therein who are also respondents in this writ petition.

¶25

10. The above contempt case came up for final hearing and it was disposed of on 19.07.2011. A copy of this order has been filed by petitioner along with his reply affidavit and it is not in dispute. In the said order the chronological events relating to filing of W.P.No.1287 of 2007 and W.P.No.18585 of 2003 and the orders or directions given therein were all set out including the case of petitioners that they are entitled for selection as Anganwadi workers as they have earlier worked as ECE Instructors. In the said order, further directions given in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 have also been set out. After considering the respective cases of the parties in the said contempt case and also the plea of respondents that the order passed in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 has been complied with by the second respondent by passing the order dated 31.01.2010, this Court disposed of the said contempt case on 19.07.2011 by making the following observations.

¶26

“As could be seen, the entire claim of the petitioners is based upon G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000, under which a Scheme was formulated for implementation of the decision of the State Government to converge the ECE component of DPEP (District Primary Education Project) with Integrated Child Development Services Scheme by providing financial assistance to the willing, existing Mothers’ Committees of the Anganwadi Centres. Guidelines with regard to procedure to be followed for implementation of the said Scheme were

¶27

issued by DPEP in consultation with Women Development & Child Welfare Department. Clause-8 of the said Guidelines reads as under:

¶28

“Wherever ECE Centres of DPEP are existing and no AWC is functioning presently and if the Women Development & Child Welfare Department wish to open a new Anganwadi Center, the existing ECE Center should be converted as Anganwadi Center to provide above mentioned facilities wherever the Mothers Committee is building for such Convergence. The Instructor and Helper of the ECE may be continued with the approval of the Mothers Committee, if they otherwise satisfy the criteria for appointment and if the Mothers Committee so desire. If the Committee is not satisfied they may replace with other local persons following the duly prescribed procedure.”

¶29

A reading of the above clause shows that on conversion of the existing ECE Centre as Anganwadi Centre, the Instructors and Helpers of ECE can be continued provided the criteria for appointment is satisfied. Moreover the approval of Mothers’ Committee is also necessary. In the instant case, the rejection of candidature of the petitioners was on the ground that the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 failed to attend the interview for selections and though the petitioner No.1 attended the interview, the Mothers’ Committee had chosen one K.Rajeswari for appointment as Anganwadi Worker.

¶30

The procedure so adopted by the respondents in my considered opinion is in accordance with Clause-8 and therefore the order dated 31.01.2010 passed by the 2^nd respondent cannot be held to be contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.14017 of 2009.

¶31

Therefore, the allegation that the respondents had flouted the order dated 10.09.2009 in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 is unfounded. However it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the validity/legality of the rejection order dated 31.01.2010. Hence it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the said order by availing the appropriate remedy as available under law.

¶32

Subject to the above, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs.”

¶33

11. It will be thus clear that this Court in the aforesaid contempt case clearly held that the second respondent by passing an order

¶34

dated 31.01.2010, has complied with the order of this Court in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 and consequently the third respondent who is the first petitioner in the said petitioner and other petitioners therein cannot complain about the violation of the said order and it has also been held that the said order cannot also be held to be contrary to the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.14017 of 2009. Accordingly, the contempt case was dismissed observing that if third respondent and other (i.e. petitioners in W.P.No.14017 of 2009) are aggrieved they should question the order dated 31.01.2010.

¶35

12. It may now be noted that the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner again for interview for selection was in substance issued on the basis of the interim order dated 29.10.2010 passed in C.C.No.1117 of 2010 to comply with the order in W.P.No.14017 of 2009. Thus once the contempt case has been dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 19.07.2011, it follows that the aforesaid interim order dated 29.10.2010 also stands vacated. Consequently, the earlier order dated 31.01.2010 rejecting the candidature of the third respondent for the post for which the petitioner was already selected stands. As a sequel, it follows that the appointment of the petitioner will remain undisturbed. In other words, these circumstances and reasons are enough to set aside the impugned notice and allow the writ petition.

¶36

13. However, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and even the learned Government Pleader relied upon an order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the District Collector and Chairman, District Level Anganwadi Workers Selection Committee of Nellore District. It is true that the said order dated 18.11.2010 after setting out the earlier selections of the petitioner and others,

¶37

reads that the third respondent was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker for the Gattupalli main centre. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 15.11.2010 and on the same day in W.P.M.P.No.36186 of 2010, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice. Thus in view of this interim stay granted, it follows that the subsequent appointment order dated 18.11.2010 cannot be valid at all and consequently the third respondent cannot get any right under it and even respondents 1 and 2 who are the official respondents cannot be allowed to support it.

¶38

14. The learned counsel for the third respondent argued other aspects, but it is not necessary to go into the same as what all that has been stated above regarding the previous writ petitions and the orders that were passed therein including the order passed in C.C.No.1117 of 2010 would clearly show that the petitioner has to succeed and neither the third respondent nor the official respondents cannot seek to undo the appointment of the petitioner now. It may also be noted here that in the order in C.C.No.1117 of 2010, this Court clearly observed that if the third respondent and other petitioners therein have any grievance against the order dated 31.01.2010 of the second respondent rejecting their candidature, they have to separately workout their remedies against that order. It is seen that the third respondent and the other petitioners therein have not questioned the said order and instead they are relying upon the action taken by respondents 1 and 2 in canceling the appointment of the petitioner which is not permissible for the aforesaid reasons. Thus their case cannot be accepted even on merits in this writ petition.

¶39

15. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notice

¶40

and the consequential appointment order dated 18.11.2010 are both set aside and this writ petition is allowed. No costs. The W.P.M.P. and the W.V.M.Ps. shall stand disposed of accordingly.

¶41

______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶42

18^th December, 2012 TJMR/CVRK

K. Rajeswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Rajeswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jacob Mudi Vs The Deputy Inspector General / Nz

Lanka Sankara Rao Vs Godavari Grameena Bank

P.Govindiah, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Project Officer, Itda, for ( Ptg-Chenchu), Vs R. Lingamaiah

The Project Officer, Itda, for Vs K. Sekhara Reddy

The Project Officer, Itda for (Ptg-Chenchu) Vs P. Subbanna S/o K. Sunkaiah