Disposed

B. Suvarnamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC8 Oct 2015WP/32686/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner, an Anganwadi Helper claiming S.S.C qualification, sought promotion to Anganwadi Worker. The Court examined representations and a relevant government memo regarding promotion criteria and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and examine her case for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker.

B. Suvarnamma, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.32686 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Smt. I.K. Annapurna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

¶5

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Helper, Center Kodumur-10, Kodumur Village & Mandal, ICDS Project, Kodumur, Kurnool District vide proceedings dated 08-06-2011. Her selection was by a validly constituted Selection Committee. Since the date of her appointment, she is discharging the duties of Anganwadi Helper. It is submitted by her that she passed S.S.C examination and is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. There is a vacancy of Anganwadi Worker in Center Kodumur-10, Kodumur Village & Mandal, ICDS Project, Kodumur, Kurnool District, which arose in September, 2015 due to the superannuation of Anganwadi Worker who was working there. The petitioner submitted representation to the 4^th respondent to consider her claim for the post of Anganwadi Worker. She based her claim on Memo No.5771/K3/2006, dated 03-12-2010. As no action was taken on the representation submitted by the petitioner, she made several representations to the 3^rd respondent for considering her promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker.

¶6

3. While So, the respondents 2 and 3 have been taking steps to fill up the vacancies of Anganwadi Workers by issuing a

¶7

Notification which was published in Newspapers on 04-10-2015. The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of the Memo dated 03-12-2010, the respondents are under a duty to consider her case for the post of Anganwadi Worker by promotion from the post of Anganwadi Helper.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner being fully qualified and eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker, she is entitled to be promoted to the post which is lying vacant.

¶9

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare submitted that since the Notification was issued, there is no vacancy of Anganwadi Worker in the village of Kodumur.

¶10

5. Perusal of the Memo dated 03-12-2010 clearly indicates that if the 4^th respondent-Child Development Project Officer is satisfied with the performance of the Anganwadi Helper and if the candidate fulfills all the eligibility criteria, she shall be selected as Anganwadi Worker. Therefore, there is a clear direction to the Project Directors to appoint Anganwadi Helpers as Anganwadi Workers by promotion if they satisfy the eligibility criteria.

¶11

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, examine her case for the promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker and pass appropriate orders thereon before filling up the said post pursuant to the Notification dated

¶12

04-10-2015 as per the Memo dated 03-12-2010.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶14

R.KANTHA RAO, J.

¶15

8^th October, 2015.

¶16

rkk

¶17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶18

Writ Petition No.28071 of 2015

¶19

02^nd September, 2015.

¶20

(Ak)

B. Suvarnamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Suvarnamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

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

P.Narasimha Murthy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Sudarshan, Vs T.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Executive Director

Kota Jagadeeswara Rao, S/o. Kota Appa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Allam Leelavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Shanmugam, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K.Rajulu Vs State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary