Disposed

Smt. N. Prameela v. The Child Development Project Officer

Telangana HC5 Dec 2014WP/3460/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by an Anganwadi worker regarding denial of duty joining due to alleged qualification mismatch. The court rejected the argument of no cancellation proceedings and, considering her present 10th class qualification, directed the respondents to consider her for prospective appointment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointing her as an Anganawadi worker prospectively considering her present qualification.

Smt. N. Prameela Vs The Child Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3460 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join the duties of the post of Anganwadi Worker pursuant to the appointment orders dated 13.12.2007 issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to allow her to join the duties of the post of Anganwadi Worker.

¶5

The brief averments as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that pursuant to the notification issued on 01.09.2007, the petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi worker and after conducting interview, the petitioner was issued proceedings dated 13.12.2007 by the 2^nd respondent. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent to allow her to join as Anganwadi worker, but she was not allowed to join as such. Thereafter she approached the respondents on several occasions and ultimately submitted a representation on 20.05.2008 requesting the respondents to allow her to take into services of Anganwadi worker. But she was not allowed to do so. Hence, she filed the present writ petition.

¶6

While this Court admitting the writ petition on 24.02.2009 gave an interim direction to the 1^st respondent to permit the petitioner to join as Anganwadi Worker pursuant to her appointment order dated 13.12.2007. The respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.1342 of 2009, praying the Court to vacate the interim direction dated 13.12.2007 given by this Court and the same is listed today for hearing.

¶7

Today when the W.V.M.P.No.1342 of 2009 is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for both the parties submitted that instead of hearing the Vacate Stay petition, the main writ petition itself may be heard and disposed of. Having considered the said submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, the main writ petition is being disposed of.

¶8

In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as Anganawadi worker in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 24.08.2007 under which qualification for appointment of Anganawadi worker was 10^th class pass. The appointment order was sent to the petitioner by mistake on account of the fact that there was one another person by name M. Prameela, D/o. Sri Anantha Rao, who had also applied for the said post. The said M. Prameela, D/o. Sri Anantha Rao had passed 10^th class and she was qualified and by mistake and by oversight, the appointment order was sent to the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner was not allowed to join the duty of Anganawadi worker.

¶9

Heard Sri N. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents.

¶10

Though in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that by oversight and mistake, a call letter was sent to the petitioner, no where, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that any proceedings were initiated thereafter cancelling the appointment given to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner had passed only 8^th class by the time she received the appointment proceedings as Anganwadi worker was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner as on date possessing 10^th class qualification and qualified to be appointed as an Anganawadi worker/Aaya/Helper in

¶11

the same village, the disqualification if any at the time of her being sent the appointment letter stands cancelled. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner’s appointment is valid even as on today and the interim direction given by this Court on 24.02.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.4491 of 2009 to permit the petitioner to join as Anganawadi, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be served if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointing her as an Anganawadi worker prospectively considering her present qualification.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointing her as an Anganawadi worker prospectively considering her present qualification. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶13

____________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶14

Date:05.12.2014 Gk.

¶15

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.3460 OF 2009

¶17

Date:05.12.2014.

¶18

Gk.

Smt. N. Prameela v. The Child Development Project Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. N. Prameela v. The Child Development Project Officer

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

Syed Jaleel Ahmed Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mr.Mohd. Khasim, Vs Syed Rahmath Ali

Padugupadu Pacs, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Smt.Sarala Jain Vs Sangu Gangathar

Duvvada Varalaxmi Vs The Project Director

Ch. Paramjyothi Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.