Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 4 (AP)

O. Samson Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-01-28

G.SHYAM PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : G. SHYAM PRASAD, J. 1. W.P. No. 31024 of 2018 is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 5 in constituting the Screening-cum-Selection Committee for Santhanuthalapadu Mandal in contravention of the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 1.01, Social Welfare (SCP.I) Department, dated 31.12.2013, as modified by G.O.Ms. No. 18, Social Welfare (SCP) Department, dated 08.02.2016, and G.O.Ms. No. 111, Social Welfare (SCP) Department, dated 23.11.2016, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri G. Seshadri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5 and Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 3. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: "Whether the constitution of Screening-cum-Selection Committee for Santhanuthalapadu Mandal is in accordance with G.O.Ms. Nos. 101, dated 31.12.2013, as modified by G.O.Ms. No. 18, dated 08.02.2016, and G.O.Ms. No. 111, dated 23.11.2016?" 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the constitution of Screening-cum-Selection Committee for Santhanuthalapadu Mandal is in contravention of the above G.Os. Learned counsel referred to G.O.Ms. No. 18, Social Welfare (SCP) Department, dated 08.02.2016, wherein it is stated in Clause II that the Screening-cum-Selection Committee shall consist of three social workers of which one must be a woman to be nominated by the Minister In-charge of the District-Member and the same is not complied with. The Minister In-charge has not nominated three social workers and the respondents have not brought on record any orders passed by the Minister nominating three social workers out of which one is a woman social worker. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5 placed reliance on para No. 3 of G.O.Ms. No. 111, Social Welfare (SCP) Department, dated 23.11.2016, which reads as under: "In view of the feedback received in the meetings of the SLBC Sub-Committee by the Social Welfare Department (the Nodal Department for the implementation of the Action Plans of the Finance Corporations of the Welfare Departments) & from the other stakeholders & duly taking into consideration the Action Plans of the SC7 ST/BC/Minorities Welfare Departments, and the deliberations held in the reference 4th cited, there is a need to reconstitute the Screening-cum-Selection Committees at the Mandal, Municipality and the Municipal Corporation levels in order to make it more representative and functional." 6. Learned counsel submits that the committee has been reconstituted as referred in para No. 4 of G.O.Ms. No. 111, Social Welfare (SCP) Department, dated 23.11.2016. It is a modification of G.O.Ms. No. 18, Social Welfare (SCP) Department, dated 08.02.2016. It is submitted that the constitution of the Screening Committee is in accordance with law and there is no violation of the order in G.O.Ms. No. 18, dated 08.02.2016. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is that the procedure for constitution of the Screening Committee in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 18, dated 08.02.2016, cannot be considered for the reason that the succeeding G.O.Ms. No. 111, dated 23.11.2016, clearly reveals that G.O.Ms. No. 18 has been modified and the Screening - cum - Selection Committees at the mandal, municipality and the municipal corporation levels are reconstituted. The petitioners do not have any grievance with regard to the reconstitution of the committee for any purpose against those members. Learned counsel for the petitioners only contends that the procedure has not been followed in reconstituting the committee as the Minister In-charge of the district being member, has not participated in the said reconstitution. As a matter of fact, G.O.Ms. No. 18, dated 08.02.2016, and other succeeding G.Os. are meant for the benefit of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Kapus and Minorities. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that the scheme is meant for the benefit of the poor and down trodden of the above castes. In view of the filing of this writ petition and granting interim orders, the benefit to be extended to 600 members is stalled. In case there is any grievance to the petitioners that they are not considered for the benefits under the above G.Os., the Government is ready to keep some amount for sanctioning to them under the above G.Os. towards their benefit if they are applicants/ 9. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have not raised any mala fides against the reconstituted committee members. The committee members of the respondent committee are also not made as parties in this writ petition as the petitioners have no grievance against them. towards their benefit if they are applicants/ 9. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have not raised any mala fides against the reconstituted committee members. The committee members of the respondent committee are also not made as parties in this writ petition as the petitioners have no grievance against them. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is wholly unnecessary to stall the proceedings of distribution of the benefits to the members under the above G.Os., as the petitioners are only two in number whereas the beneficiaries are already 600 in number. If the petitioners have already filed any applications before respondent No. 6, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in that regard as per the G.Os. referred above. 10. Therefore, in W.P. No. 31024 of 2018, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to consider the applications, if any, filed by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and extend the benefit as per the above G.Os., as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. W.P. No. 31041 of 2018:- 11. W.P. No. 31041 of 2018 is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in constituting the Screening-cum-Selection Committee for N.G. Padu Mandal in contravention of the guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 101, dated 31.12.2013, as modified by G.O.Ms. No. 18, dated 08.02.2016, and G.O.Ms. No. 111, dated 23.11.2016, as illegal and arbitrary. 12. Sri G. Seshadri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5, and Sri M. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, advanced arguments in this writ petition also. There are four applicants in this writ petition raising the same contentions similar to that of the writ petition referred above i.e., W.P. No. 31024 of 2018. 13. Therefore, in W.P. No. 31041 of 2018 also, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to consider the applications, if any, filed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and extend the benefit as per the above G.Os., as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. 1 to 4 and extend the benefit as per the above G.Os., as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.