Partly allowed

A. Saraswathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC29 Dec 2015WP/41298/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside a notification for recruiting Anganwadi workers in Gonegadla Village to consider the claim of the first petitioner. The second petitioner's claim was rejected due to no vacancy existing in her village. The writ petition was partly allowed, directing respondents to consider the eligible first petitioner for appointment

What did the court decide?

The notification dated 12.09.2015 for recruitment in Gonegadla Village is set aside; respondents directed to consider the first petitioner's claim for appointment if eligible; no relief for the second

A. Saraswathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.41298 of 2015

¶3

DATED : 29.12.2015

¶4

Between: A. Saraswathi W/o.M.Prasad, Aged 30 yrs, Anganwadi Helper, H.No.4/143, S.C.Colony, Gonegadla (Post & Mandal), Kurnool District & another.

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary Women and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others.

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.41298 of 2015

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed praying to declare the paper notification dated 12.09.2015 issued by the 3^rd respondent herein to conduct recruitment to the posts of Anganwadi workers in Pattikonda Project, Kodumuru Project, Kurnool District as being illegal arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and further violative of memo No.9207/ICDSA1/98 dated 23.12.1998, Memo No.5771/KG/2006 dated 03.12.2010, Memo No.5771/K3/2006 dated 05.01.2012 issued by the respondent No.1 and 2 and further to declare that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi workers.

¶13

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader represents that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.31374 of 2015 & batch dated 16.11.2015. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader states that in so far as 2^nd petitioner is concerned there is no vacancy in Guduru village, Kurnool District and therefore, the 2^nd petitioner cannot be considered now. In so far as the 1^st petitioner is concerned, the vacancy is available in Gonegadla Village.

¶14

3. Having regard to the same, the notification dated 12.09.2015 to recruit to the post of Anganwadi worker, in Gonegadla Village, is concerned, is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider

¶15

the claim of the 1^st petitioner for appointment/promotion as Anganwadi worker in Anganwadi Center of Gonegadla Village, if she is otherwise eligible and suitable. In so far as the 2^nd petitioner is concerned, no relief can be granted, since, according to learned Assistant Government Pleader, there is no vacancy of Anganwadi Worker in Gudur Village, Kurnool District.

¶16

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶18

___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 29^th December, 2015 Rds

A. Saraswathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Saraswathi 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

Smt.B.Padmavathi W/o Thimoti, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

K.Veerasomulu, S/o.Komaraiah Vs Northern Power Distribution company of Telangana Ltd.

Bommena Bhagya, D/o. Nallagondaiah Vs The State of Telangana

D.John Bernabas Vs -

A.K.Basha, E-403630, Apsrtc Driver Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C.

P. Durga Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh