Dismissed

Duvvada Varalaxmi v. The Project Director

Telangana HC5 Dec 2014WP/3814/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the illegal appointment of a third respondent as an Anganwadi worker. It held that non-joining by the appointee due to a stay order precludes immediate appointment of the petitioner, though the petitioner's claim may be considered if the appointee fails to join after intimation following five years. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; miscellaneous petitions pending therein stand dismissed.

Duvvada Varalaxmi Vs The Project Director — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3814 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent in selecting the 3^rd respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Popusettipalem Village, Golgonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker for the above said village in pursuance of the interviews conducted on 19.02.2009.

¶5

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the very appointment of the 3^rd respondent is in violation of the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.21 dated 24.08.2007, wherein it has been categorically prescribed that a candidate should have completed 21 years of age and not completed 35 years as on 1^st July of recruiting year.

¶6

In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, it has been stated that for the purpose of appointment of Anganawadi worker, it has been specifically stated in the G.O.Ms.No.21 itself that the date of reckoning is on 1^st July of the recruiting year as the base. If the date of the first July is taken into consideration, the date of birth of the 3^rd respondent being 4.5.1998 as per S.S.C certificate she would be eligible and she was qualified to be appointed for the post. Inasmuch as she is faired well in the interview and found to be better qualified, she was given appointment and there was no malafide action in appointing the 3^rd respondent.

¶7

Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

¶8

respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appeared for the 3^rd respondent.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was more qualified and there was no valid reason for rejecting her claim and appointing the 3^rd respondent for the post of Anganawadi worker is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶10

In the light of the explanation given by the respondents 1 and 2 and in the facts situation there being no irregularity in appointing the 3^rd respondent, the writ petition is devoid of merits and no orders are required to be passed interfering with the order of appointment given in favour of the 3^rd respondent. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent did not join the post of Anganwadi worker and no counter-affidavit as such has been filed by the 3^rd respondent and there is no representation on her behalf. I find from the docket order that there was an order of status quo granted on 25.02.2009, which was received by the 1^st respondent on 16.3.2009. In that view of the matter, non joining of the 3^rd respondent cannot be a ground for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner in the place of 3^rd respondent as Anganwadi worker. However, considering the fact that five years have elapsed from the date of initial appointment, in the event of an intimation being sent to the 3^rd respondent for joining the post and in the event of her not evincing any interest to join the said post, the petitioner’s case may be considered for the said post of Anganwadi worker.

¶11

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

¶12

JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶13

Date:05.12.2014 Gk.

¶14

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.3814 OF 2009

¶16

Date:05.12.2014.

¶17

Gk.

Duvvada Varalaxmi v. The Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duvvada Varalaxmi v. The Project Director

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. N. Prameela Vs The Child Development Project Officer

Smt.Sarala Jain Vs Sangu Gangathar

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