Ramavath Nirmala, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Ramavath Nirmala, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker must be made strictly on merit as reflected in SSC marks, and whether the petitioner, having secured higher marks than Respondent No. 4 (380 v. 230), was thereby entitled to appointment. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner failed to establish her continuous residence in Balu Thanda, which is a mandatory requirement for selection as an Anganwadi Worker as per the applicable government guidelines.

Key takeaways

Mere production of a residence certificate, in the face of contrary evidence obtained through physical verification, cannot be considered sufficient to establish eligibility.ratio¶6
The records clearly indicated the petitioner had been residing in Balajinagar for a significant period and had altered her address (Aadhaar change to Balu Thanda effected 04.01.2018) shortly before submitting her application, raising serious doubts about the genuineness of her residence claim.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana HC (Sing. J., Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.; order dt. 02.07.2025) — W.P. No. 8142 of 2018 (filed 2018; Art. 226). Petitioner Ramavath Nirmala (ST) challenged appointment of Respondent No. 4 (printed 'Pamavth Srivali', also ST) as Anganwadi Worker, Balu Thanda, Madgul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, claiming superior SSC merit (380 v. 230 marks) and alleging arbitrariness/natural-justice violations. Held: continuous residence in the habitation of the Anganwadi centre is a MANDATORY eligibility criterion under applicable government guidelines; a Tahsildar residence certificate is insufficient against contrary physical verification conducted by CDPO, Amangal Project pursuant to Circular Memo No. 4207/ICDS-3/2016 dt. 11.04.2017 — villager statements, absence of a Balu Thanda ration card, Mini-AWW teacher (Smt. Jangamma) not seeing petitioner since 01.09.2015 survey, deposition of Smt. K. Latha (AWW, Balajinagar) that petitioner resided in Balajinagar, Balapur Mandal since 2016 with THR enrolment and food provision there 2016–Dec. 2017, delivery certificate (PIIC Kandukur) recording Balajinagar address, and Aadhaar address changed to Balu Thanda only on 04.01.2018 (date of application) — raising serious doubts on genuineness of the residence claim. No procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice found. Petition DISMISSED, no costs; pending misc. applications closed.

[³³⁰⁰ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY HE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION NO: 8142 OF 2018

Between:

Ramavath Nirmala, Wo. Ramavath Shiva, Aged about 24 years, R/o. 6-93, Balu Thanda, Apparedypally, tVlandgul [,4andal, Ranga Redd, District.

...PETITIONER

AND

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social welfare, Secrataiat, Hyderbad.

The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderbad.

The Project Director, Child Devlopment Project (Anganwadi), 0/o. District Collector office, Lakdikapool, Hyderbad

4 Pamavth Srivali, W/ o. Ramavath Nagesh, Aged about 22 years, R/o. 6-52, Balu Thanda, Apparedypally, lrlandgul [r.4andal, Ranga Reddy District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Wrrt of A,4andamus declaring the actron of lhe Respondent No. 1 to 3 in appointing the Respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker, Balu Thanda, Madgul Mandal Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner has AnganwadiWorker

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High c rurt may be preased to direct the Respondent No. i to 3 not to give posting orc ers to the Respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker, Baru Thanda, madgur Manda Ranga Reddy District lA NO: 2 OF 2018

Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in th,) circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High colrrt may be pleased to extend the stay granted on 13-03-201g jn W.p. No. g142 cf 2O1g

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. p. S. p. SURESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: Smt. G. VIJAYA KUMARI, AGP FOR WOMEN DEVEI-OPMENT AND SOCIAL WELFARE

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K. SRINIVIAS RAC)

The Court made the following: ORDER

:

1

wp 8142 2O1a NBK, J

THE HON'BLE Szu JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.8142 of 2018

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner is that she is a permanent resident of Balu -I'handa, Madgul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Respondent Nos. I to 3 issued a notification in January 20 18 lor recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner submitted her application on 04.01 .201 8.

l.l The further case of the petitioner is that she secured 380 marks in the SSC exarnination, whereas Respondent No.4, who also applied tbr the same post, secured only 230 marks. Both the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 belong to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. In the provisional list of applicants, Respondent No. 4 was shown at Serial No. 17, while the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 19. However, in the final list of selected candidates published at the Mandal Office in February 20 18, Respondent No. 4 was shown as selected for appointment.

1.2 The grievance of the petitioner is that the appointment to the post olAnganwadi Worker ought to have been made strictly on the basis of rnerit as reflected in the SSC marks. The^petitioner contends that, having secured higher marks than Respondent No. 4, she was more meritorious and therelore entitled to be appointed. Upon being informed of Respondent No. 4's selection, she submitted a representation to the authorities on 26.02.2018. However, she was orally informed that her candidature was not considered on the ground that she was not residing in Balu'I'handa at the relevant time. The petitioner explains that her absence fiom Ralu Thanda

!-

2

wp 8142 2018 NBK, ]

was temporary and due to genuine medical and personal reasons. She had gone to her parents' house in Kandukur, Ranga Reddy District, in connection with her pregnanc) and delivery, and gave birth to a male child on 08.0 I .20 18. She assefts that this temporary relocation canrot be construed to mean that she had lost her status as a resident of llalu T'handa. The petitionel contends that the action of the respondent; in denying her appointment despite her merit, and without giving her at-r opoortunity to explain her position, is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved thereby, she has filed the present writ lre tition.

Heard Sri P.S.P. Surcsh Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. G. Vijava Kr-urari, lcamed Assistant Government P cadel for Women Developmenr and Chitd Wellare.

Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner made submissio r:; in line with the writ altidavit and furrher contended that the petitioner is a resident of Balu Thanda. [n suppolt ol'this, a residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar was frled. The petitioner is a morc meritorious candidate than Respondent No. 4.^'l'hcrcfbre, it is requcsted that this Court direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker of Batr^'thanda, Madgul Mandal. Rrngr Redth District.

fhe leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader, relyir.Lg on the counter affldavit, strbmitted that thc- appointment of Anganwadi Workers shall be based on SSC rnerit. and the candidate must reside in th: sanre habitation rvhere the Anganrvacii centre is located.

In the prescnt case, thc petitioner produced a resiclencc cerlihcate issued by the I^'I'ahsilclar stating that she is a resident of tsalu Thanda.

wp 4142 2O1a NBK,I

I I

However, as per Circular Memo No. 4207[ICDS-3/20 I 6, dated t I .04.2017 , issued tiy the Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, a physical verification was conducted by the Child Development Project Officer, Amangal Project. During the verification, it was rcvealed that the petitioner was not residing in Balu Thanda.

5.I Statements from the villagers of Balu Thanda confinned that the petitioner does not reside in the village. Fufther, the local ration dealer stated that thc petitioner does not possess a ration card lrom Balu^'fhanda. Additionatly, Smt. Jangamma, the Mini Anganwadi Teacher in charge at Balu Thanda, stated that she had not seen the petitioner during her survey since 0l .09.2015.

5.2 Srnt. K. Latha, Anganwadi Teacher of Balaj inagar, deposed that the petitioner has been residing in Balajinagar village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District since 2016. The petitioner's name was enrolled in the Take-Home Ration (THR) register, and food was provided to her from the Anganwadi Centre in Balajinagar from 2016 to December 2017.

5.3 Moreover, the petitioner's Aadhaar card shows that her address was changed only recently, on 04.01.2018, from Balajinagar village to Balu Thanda, suggesting that the change was made intentionally to meet the etigibility criteria for the post. The petitioner's delivery ce(ificate from PI [C Kandukul also records her residence as Balaj inagar, Balapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. These facts collectively indicate that the petitioner has not been a genuine resident of Balu Thanda, but rather claimed residence thcre for the purpose of securing appointment as an Anganwadi Worker.

4

wp 8142-2018 N8K,

' -

ln vierv of the fbrcgoing discussion, this Court is of the^considered opinion that the petitioner has lailed to establish her contirtttous^residencein Balu Thanda. which is a mandatory requirement fot seler:tion^{as an} Anganwadi Workcr, as per the applicable govemment lluidelines.^Mere production of a residence certificate, in the face of^r:ontrary evidence obtained through physical verification, cannot be consi<lered sufficient^to establish eligibitity. The records clearlv indicate that the t,etitioner had been residing in Balaj inagar tbr a signiticant period and had altered her address shortly befbre subrnitting her application,^rvhich raises^{se -i,tus} doubts about the genuineness of her claim. Further, no procedural inlrnnity or^violation ofnatural^justice has been made out on the part of the resprtndents.

7 . Accordingly, thc writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, ilany, shalI stand closed. ,r

' o^ o*' ;lffnYYt 33'tT [t[

(_?

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

One CC^{to SRI P S P SURESH KUMR' AQyl"."J'IOPUCI} 2. Two CCs^{to cp FoR w6ili-N"D'rvEioprrrrrUiAuo'sOctALWELFARE} '^'Fi;ia;;,1 for tne State oi ietangana at Hyderabad.lCUTl 3 ci;;461; ini^{x SnrNrvns RAb AdvocateIoPUC'} 4. Two CD^CoPies

BIV TKS

Yk

J

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210712025

ORDER

WP.No.8142 of 2018

I
Hf sr4 15.
fr 1
t (
,6€)2
1;,,1 MI G
I
o3:'::119L 1O

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

^t
-qei b
-y
"oY\t,<4
,(r\ \c
,b'