Allowed

K. Anuja v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC16 Dec 2015WP/39288/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the selection of an Anganwadi worker. The court found the respondent falsely declared her residence to secure employment by obtaining duplicate Aadhar cards. Consequently, the appointment was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Proceeding No. 79/A/2015 appointing the 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker is set aside.

K. Anuja Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

WRTI PETITION No. 39288 OF 2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

K. Anuja W/o Kiran Basha, aged 21 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o 4- 10-273, HP Gas Office Road ,Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

A n d

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disable Welfare (ICDS) Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad and four others

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

DATE OF ORDER : 16.12.2015

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 39288 OF 2015

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Petitioner challenges the selection of 5^th respondent as Anganwadi Worker for Sri Rama Hall-I Centre of Pulivendula Town. Petitioner raised several contentions against the said selection. One of the contentions urged is that the 5^th respondent is not a resident of Pulivendula Town and non-local/non-resident of the town was considered for the Anganwadi Worker and therefore on that ground alone the said selection be vitiated.

¶15

2. Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for 5^th respondent took notice on behalf of 5^th respondent. To ascertain the truth of the allegation made, the record was called for.

¶16

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Learned Counsel appearing for 5^th respondent.

¶17

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contends that the 5^th respondent has obtained two different Aadhar Cards and in one Aadhar Card the name of the petitioner shown as ‘Rage Nivasa’ and her husband’s name described as ‘B. Suryudu Naik’ and residential address given was 4-10-247, Prashanthinagar, Pulivendula. In another Aadhar Card, her name shown as ‘B. Lakshmi Nivasa’ and her husband’s name described as ‘B. Suryudu Naik’ and her residential address described as 3/33, Motnutalapalli, Erraballe, Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the copy of the Aadhar Card issued in the name of the husband of the 5^th respondent. In the said Aadhar Card, the residential address was shown as similar to the address given by the 5^th respondent in the second Aadhar Card. In addition, the learned counsel also placed

¶18

reliance on the Voter I.D. Card issued in the name of the 5^th respondent and it also described the residential address as Motnutala Palli. Based on these documents, the learned counsel submits that wrong declaration is given showing that she is a resident of Pulivendula to secure employment. He further contended that the 5^th respondent earlier claimed employment as Anganwadi Helper by showing her residential address as Motunuthalapalli (a Hamlet of Yerraballi Village) in Anganwadi Center of Yerraballi. In support of the said contention, the order of appointment dated 27.6.2012 is filed as document P-6. It is therefore contended that for the purpose of securing employment, the 5^th respondent wrongly shown her residential address and the 5^th respondent is not a resident of Pulivendula and she is a resident of Motunuthalapalli. On the said ground alone the action of the 5^th respondent is vitiated.

¶19

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent submitted that after the marriage the name of the 5^th respondent was changed as B. Lakshmi Nivasa. Though they originally belong to Motunuthalapalli Village, but to have better living they have shifted their residence to Pulivendula and presently residing in Pulivendula.

¶20

6. After verifying the record, the learned Assistant Government Pleader fair in submitting that the 5^th respondent was not a resident of Pulivendula Town when the selection was made.

¶21

7. The original documents produced by the learned Government Pleader as well as the material relied upon by the petitioner clearly show that the 5^th respondent is a resident of Motunuthalapalli Village and by showing her residence as Motunuthalapalli Vilalge she secured employment as Anganwadi Helper in Yerraballi Vilalge. 8. For appointment to the post of ‘Anganwadi Helper’ or ‘Anganwadi Worker’ the mandatory requirement is ‘a person should be a resident of the area in which the Center is located’. Thus, it is clear that the 5^th

¶22

respondent, obviously to secure employment, as Anganwadi Worker, shown her residence as Pulivendula. As stated by learned counsel for 5^th respondent, after ascertaining from the 5^th respondent, that just before making an application to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Pulivendula town, she has resigned to the post of Anganwadi Helper, Yerraballi.

¶23

9. All these documents and the averments would clearly disclose that only for the purpose of securing employment in Pulivendula as Anganwadi Worker, the 5^th respondent made a wrong declaration stating that she is a resident of Pulivendula and in support of the same, the 5^th respondent obtained second Aadhar Card. No explanation is forthcoming as to why second Aadhar Card was taken with a different name. If it is the case of the 5^th respondent that she shifted her residence to Pulivendula, she ought to have taken steps to make necessary corrections in the Aadhar Card. Instead of taking steps she could not have obtained second Aadhar Card with different name. Further, the residential address of the Husband of the 5^th respondent was also not changed. Such kind of false representations cannot be appreciated. The appointment of 5^th respondent as Anganwadi Worker is liable to be set-aside on this ground alone. In view of the same, the other contentions raised are not considered. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceeding No. 79/A/2015 dated 13.11.2015 of the 4^th respondent appointing the 5^th respondent as Anganwadi Worker for Sri Rama Hall-1 Center of Pulivendula Town, YSR Kadapa District, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶25

Date: 16.12.2015

¶26

K. Anuja v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Anuja v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

Shivanna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

B. Bhaskar Reddy, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its

Ch. Ramchander, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Dr.G.Vinod Kumar Vs Osmania University

B.Chandra Kala, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

S. Atchutharamaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Revenue