Guttapalli Saraswathi v. The Project Director, Icds, Zilla Parishad Premises

Telangana HC8 Nov 2016WP/28285/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the appointment of an underage respondent as an Anganwadi worker but directed authorities to appoint the qualified petitioner within three months, either in a vacancy at another village or by revoking the appointment and following natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of petitioner as Anganwadi worker within three months, either in another village's vacancy or by revoking the 4th respondent's appointment.

Guttapalli Saraswathi Vs The Project… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 28285 OF 2007

¶2

O R D E R :

¶3

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the selection of the 4^th respondent as Anganwadi worker of Doddachenu Vaddepalli , H/o Settipalli of Sambepalli Mandal, Kadapa District in preference to the petitioner.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification issued calling for the applications for selection and appointment of Anganwadi worker for the above-said village, the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent, who hail from the same village, made applications. Though the petitioner is qualified in all respects, she was not selected, but however, the 4^th respondent, notwithstanding the fact that she is under-aged as on the date of the application, was given appointment as such. Hence, the petitioner seeks a mandamus to set aside the said appointment made in favour of the 4^th respondent and direct Respondents 1 to 3 to appoint her in place of the 4^th respondent.

¶5

The 3^rd respondent Child Development Project Officer, who is the appointing authority, has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it has been categorically admitted that as on the date of appointment of the 4^th respondent, she was under-aged. It has further been stated that the selection was made by the Selection Committee. The claim of the petitioner that she should be given preference for possessing E.C.E. qualification was denied as the qualifications prescribed in the notification do not provide therefor.

¶6

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Sri K.R. Sasidharan Nair submits that the efforts made by him to contact his client have turned futile, hence, he reports ‘no instructions’.

¶9

Having considered the above fact scenario, in the light of the material available on record, particularly the averment in the counter-affidavit to the effect that the 4^th respondent was under-aged as on the date of her appointment, this Court is of the opinion that the appointment of the 4^th respondent is irregular and hence, the same is liable to be set aide. However, keeping in view the fact that the 4^th respondent has been appointed in 2007 and as on date, she would be of the eligible age, at the first instance, the official respondents shall make every endeavour to give appointment to the petitioner as Anganwadi worker within the district at some other village, in the immediate vacancy. If there is no vacancy for accommodating the petitioner, she shall be recruited in the place of the 4^th respondent, after revoking her appointment, duly following the principles of natural justice. This entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶11

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.

¶12

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶13

08^th November 2016 ksld

Guttapalli Saraswathi v. The Project Director, Icds, Zilla Parishad Premises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guttapalli Saraswathi v. The Project Director, Icds, Zilla Parishad Premises

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

K.Krishna Murty, Vs Sri v. Sundar, Its

Chereddy Prabhakar Vs Chitalapati Amarnadh

Chunduru Ravindra, Vs Pamula Venkata Sreenivasulu

M/s. Jagriti Steel, Pvt. Ltd., Vs K. Sai Baba

S. Ramachandra Rao, Vs Ministry of Railways, Government of India Represented by

Dr. Arvind Kumar Ganeriwal Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its