Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 914 (AP)

Kaladi Padma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-09-16

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proceeding to give Promotion to the 6th respondent as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Center Code 264 of Gogullanka Anganwadi Center-I, Polvaram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, are illegal arbitrary, violation of Constitutional Rights and without notification and contrary to as per the Memo No. 5771/K3/2006, dated 05.01.2012 Government Memo No. 160371/15/2018-1 dated 13.12.2018 as per the G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.03.2011 per the Judgment in W.P.No.31374/2015 and batch and Order in W.P. No.22940/2021 dated 07.10.2021 and consequently direct Respondents forthwith to consider the case of the for Promotion as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Center Code 264 of Gogullanka Anganwadi Center I, Polvaram Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Helper vide Rc No.51/A/2012, dated 04.03.2013 for the Gogullanka Anganwadi Center Code No.264 as Anganwadi Helper and since then she is discharging her duties with utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities and she is having experience more than 9 years and is eligible for the promotion of Anganwadi Worker as per Rules in vogue, therefore, she made representations to the respondent authorities to consider her name for promotion of Anganwadi Worker. Even though 5th respondent has issued Notification dated 26.8.2022, the Anganwadi Center Code No.264 was not notified showing the vacancy position, however, on the strength of the file, the respondents are going to consider, the Anganwadi Helper who has been working in the Code No.265 for promotion as Anganwadi Worker, though according to Notification Condition No.(1)(a), only local candidates to be considered, contrary this Condition No.(1)(a) of the Notification, as Anganwadi Helper is not resident of the Anganwadi Center Code No.264. It is further stated that there is no notification was issued to fill up Promotion to the post of the Anganwadi Worker for the Gogulanka Anganwadi Center Code No.264, though, the respondents issued Notification dated 26.08.2022, in the said Notification, the Gogullanka Anganwadi Center Code no.264, is not notified, even then also, the respondent trying to take steps to effect promotion to the 6th respondent who is presently working as Anganwadi Helper in the Byravalanka Anganwadi Center Code No.265 contrary to the Memo No.5771/K3/2006, dated 5.1.2012. It is further stated that as per G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.3.2011, wherein it was mandated that, after careful consideration of the proposal submitted by the Commissioner Women Development & Child Welfare, Hyderabad vide reference 4th read above, the Government enhanced the age limit to 45 years in respect of Anganwadi Helpers for appointment as Anganwadi Workers, provided she fulfils all other conditions and is physically fit to discharge the duties of anganwadi Workers including conduct of Pre-School and should have been regular in attending to her duties without any adverse reports. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III and learned Government Pleader for women and Child Welfare appearing for the respondents. 4. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is having eligibility and completed 21 years of age as per eligibility criteria for selection of Anganwadi Worker and the same is admitted by the respondents also. Since the petitioner is qualified X Class as per eligibility criteria for selection of Anganwadi Worker, therefore the respondents are expected minimum knowledge with regard to discharge of duties and capability up to such extent only and not beyond that, such question is highly irrelevant. Though the petitioner is working in the Anganwadi Centre since several years and having minimum knowledge and also she has completed SSC and having more than six years of service. Therefore, the respondents are not expected to go beyond the scope to test the capability of the petitioner and such practice is highly illegal and arbitrary. The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner only on the requisite qualifications as per eligibility criteria, but not otherwise. In the case of the petitioner, the respondents made unnecessary exercise and denying the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on flimsy grounds is unsustainable. The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner only on the requisite qualifications as per eligibility criteria, but not otherwise. In the case of the petitioner, the respondents made unnecessary exercise and denying the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on flimsy grounds is unsustainable. Though, the petitioner is entitled for promotion as per G.Os and existing rules, the respondents did not consider the request of the petitioner in the existing vacancy in the same Anganwadi Centre, the respondents issued notification without considering the request of the petitioner, as highly illegal and arbitrary. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusing the material on record and on considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, in the interest of justice, this Court declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Anganwadi Worker from the category of Anganwadi Helper, though she is eligible as per G.Os and Rules; consequently the impugned Notification issued for filling up for the post of Anganwadi Worker, as illegal and arbitrary. 6. Accordingly, the recruitment notification challenged in the writ petition is hereby set aside and consequently the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Center Code 264 of Gogullanka Anganwadi Center I Polavara Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District subject to her eligibility and suitability in the existing vacancy. The entire exercise shall be completed within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the above writ petition is disposed of accordingly at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.