Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1359 (AP)

B. Kumari v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-25

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : (V. Sujatha, J.) : This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief : “…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ by declaring the action of 3rd Respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings no 09/A/2015 dated 12-01-2016 without giving any notice and without conducting any enquiry and opportunity of hearing and contrary to the instructions issued in WA 147 of 2013 is not legal and valid and violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the impugned proceedings no.09/A/2015 dated 12-01-2016 issued by the 3rd respondent and pass such other order or orders …” 2. Heard Ms.P.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner herein has applied for the post of Anganwadi worker for the Badapuram Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. After undergoing due selection process the petitioner was also appointed by the 4th respondent as Anganwadi worker. Challenging the said appointment of the petitioner, the 6th respondent herein has filed W.P.No.7093 of 2009 before this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 06.04.2009 has directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the representation of the 6th respondent regarding non eligibility of the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi worker. 4. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the 4th respondent passed orders on 09.12.2009 stating that the petitioner was not a resident of Badapuram Village at the time of the interview but was residing at Jagannadhapuram of Tharlupadu Mandal and as such she is not eligible and passed orders removing the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi worker. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 09.12.2009 the petitioner filed W.P.No.601 of 2010 before this Court on the sole ground that without issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned orders. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 09.12.2009 the petitioner filed W.P.No.601 of 2010 before this Court on the sole ground that without issuing any notice and without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned orders. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court vide orders dated 29.10.2010 as under :- “On the ground that the orders dated 09.12.2009 no reference is made to any exercise undertaken by R2, further it is stated that not even mentioned that R4 has issued notice to the petitioner before recording finding to the effect that she is a resident of Jagannadhapuram. This Hon’ble court further came to conclusion that when the appointing authority is a committee the matter of removal must also go before that very authority and writ petition is allowed and proceedings dated 09.12.2009 set aside and the appointment of 6th respondent is set aside and petitioner shall be entitled to function as anganwadi worker.” 6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by this Court, the 6th respondent has preferred Writ Appeal No.147 of 2013, which was disposed of on 15.03.2013 directing the 2nd respondent to place the representation of the writ appellant i.e., the 6th respondent and the issue with regard to the eligibility of the writ petitioner before the committee as constituted under G.O.Ms.No.28 dated 02.12.2004, and as duly revised under G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 04.04.2012 to enable the said committee to consider the eligibility of the petitioner to hold the said post of Anganwadi worker of Badapuram Village in accordance with law. 7. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the orders passed in the Writ Appeal No.147 of 2013 dated 15.03.2013, the respondents instead of implementing the orders have passed the impugned proceedings even without giving any notice to the petitioner as directed by this Court in W .P.No.601 of 2010, duly removing the petitioner from the duties on the ground that she is not a resident of Badapuram Anganwadi Centre. 8. Challenging the said removal order, the present writ petition is filed. 8. Challenging the said removal order, the present writ petition is filed. On 15.02.2016 when the Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following order :- “Apart from other contentions pertaining to failure to constitute the Committee in terms of the orders of the Division Bench, it is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that without giving a notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as directed by this Court, the impugned order has been passed by the third respondent. As directed by this Court, records have been placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader. While referring to the records it is stated by the learned Government Pleader that only after giving notice to the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.6, the impugned order came to be passed. But, prima facie, this Court finds the difference between the signature in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the signature alleged to have been obtained on the notice dated 15.02.2014. In view of the above, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for and consequently the writ petitioner shall be continued as Anganwadi Worker of Badapuram Village, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District.” 9. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter duly admitting the facts as stated by the petitioner but however has stated that the present impugned orders were passed in compliance to the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.147 of 2013, the Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency issued notices to the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent respectively on 15.02.2014 and the said notices were served on the petitioner and the 6th respondent respectively on 18.02.2014 and 19.02.2014 and thereafter both of them have submitted their explanation and attended the enquiry on 24.02.2014. The Collector appointed Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub-Collector as enquiry officer to enquire into the nativity of the petitioner as well as the 6th respondent. The Sub-Collector of Kandukuru submitted an enquiry report on 27.10.2015 vide RC.F/2784/2014 stating that after careful examination it is observed that the petitioner herein is not a resident of Badapuram Village of Donakonda Mandal but a resident of Jagannadhapuram Village, Tarlapadu Mandal at the time of the notification. The Sub-Collector of Kandukuru submitted an enquiry report on 27.10.2015 vide RC.F/2784/2014 stating that after careful examination it is observed that the petitioner herein is not a resident of Badapuram Village of Donakonda Mandal but a resident of Jagannadhapuram Village, Tarlapadu Mandal at the time of the notification. It is further stated that the 6th respondent is resident of Badapuram Village of Donakonda Mandal at the time of notification. As such her name was also entered in the Badapuram Village of Donakonda Mandal against S.No.17. 10. Basing on the said report of the Tahsildar of Donakonda Mandal and the enquiry report of Sub-Collector, Kandukuru, the committee was constituted as per G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 05.07.2015 of the Department of Women Development and Child Development Agency, Government of Andhra Pradesh. As per the above G.O, the District Collector is the chairman, Revenue Divisional Officer concerned member, DM & HO/Additional DM & Additional HO member, Child Development Project Officer concerned member and Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency member. As per the above G.O the committee has recommended the 6th respondent as Anganwadi Worker of Badapuram Village SC colony. Basing on the committee recommendations only note orders were issued by the Collector. Thereafter, basing on the committee recommendation the District Collector has passed the proceedings dated 15.01.2016 removing the petitioner as Anganwadi worker of Badapuram Village. 11. It is further stated that the respondent has issued notice and followed the procedure as contemplated under G.Os before issuing the removal orders. The 6th respondent has also filed a counter under similar lines. 12. On a perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2016, it can be observed that at reference Sl.No.11 refers to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.147 of 2013 and thereafter, Sl.No.12 note orders of the District Collector dated 30.10.2013, Sl.13 note orders of the District Collector and District Magistrate dated 24.02.2014, Sl.No.14 report dated 27.01.2015 of the Sub Collector, Kandukuru, Sl.No.15 memo Rc.No.416/A1/2009, dated 19.02.2015 of the Project Director, District Women and Child Development Society, Ongole, Sl.No.16 note orders of the Divisional Anganwadi Workers Appointment Committee, Kandukuru dated 05.10.2015, Sl.No.17 note orders of the Collector and District Magistrate dated 13.11.2015 and Sl.No.18 circular memo No.416/A4/2015, dated 15.12.2015 of the Project Director, District Women and Child Development Society, Ongole. 13. 13. On a perusal of the references of the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2016, there is no such reference of any notice being issued in pursuance of the appointment of the committee i.e., dated 05.10.2015 either to the petitioner or to the 6th respondent herein. After 05.10.2015, straight away the office orders of the District Collector and District Magistrate were taken into consideration and thereafter, the impugned proceedings were passed removing the petitioner from her services. Though it is an admitted fact that the notices were issued earlier to the orders passed by this Court i.e., even prior to constitution of the committee, but after constitution of the committee as directed by this Court there is no notice to the petitioner and it is also a fact that the petitioner was being continued in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court till date in the post of Anganwadi worker. 14. In view of the fact that no notice was given to the petitioner after constitution of the committee, in compliance to the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.147 of 2013 dated 15.03.2013. 15. As such this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings no.09/A/2015 dated 12-01-2016 issued by the 3rd respondent. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.