ORDER : MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing the impugned notification dated 06.10.2015 call for applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi Helper at Thonduru - I center of Kadapa District dated 06.10.2015 even after completion of the process of selection as long back as on 23.09.2015 in pursuance to the notification dated 13.06.2015 even though no such power was reserved to cancel the same, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without any authority of law as well Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned notification dated 06.10.2015 in so far as the Anganwadi Helper Post at Thonduru I Centre, and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.Nitesh, as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Thonduru Village, Thonduru Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, who completed her studies up to 7 th class. The second respondent issued notification dated 13.06.2025, calling for applications to the posts of Anganwadi helpers, Mini - Anganwadi helpers at Anganwadi centers for the post of Anganwadi helper, Thonduru I Anganwadi Center, Thonduru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. The Petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi helper, as she fulfilled all the pre-requisite qualifications in terms of notification dated 13.06.2025. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the third respondent Vide Letter No 93/C.P.D.O/2015 dated 15.09.2015 directed the petitioner to appear for interview to the post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru-I Anganwadi Center. Consequently, Petitioner appeared for the said interview and fared well and she is waiting for final results of interview. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the second respondent without giving any prior notice or reasons, unilaterally issued the second notification dated 06.10.2015, which is impugned in the present writ petition, where under, the second respondent cancelled the earlier first notification dated 13.06.2015. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the second respondent without giving any prior notice or reasons, unilaterally issued the second notification dated 06.10.2015, which is impugned in the present writ petition, where under, the second respondent cancelled the earlier first notification dated 13.06.2015. Further, by virtue of second notification, respondent authorities also changed the qualifications for the post of Anganwadi Helpers without giving any reasons in the second notification dated 06.10.2015 about the cancellation of first notification dated 13.06.2015. Hence, the second notification is liable to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order dated 22.08.2024 in W.P.No.36232/2015 and also the order dated 12.04.2022 in W.P.No.35916/2015 of this Court. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to pass similar orders in the present case also. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader (Women and Child Welfare), High Court of A.P., while reiterating the contentions asserted in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent submits that the respondent authorities are not disputing the issuance of first notification dated 13.06.2015, where under prescribing the qualifications for the post of Anganwadi Helper. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also submits that the respondent authorities issued a call letter dated 15.09.2015 in favour of the petitioner, for the post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru – I Anganwadi Center, by fixing the date of interview as 23.09.2015. He further states that the petitioner appeared for the interview on the said date for the post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru-I Anganwadi Center. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also states that, as per the instructions from the higher authorities only, the second respondent issued the second notification/impugned notification dated 06.10.2015 by cancelling the first notification dated 13.06.2015 for the very same posts by following the parameters in G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.05.2015 issued by the Government of A.P. Where under prescribing the qualifications for the posts of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi helpers, candidates should possess 10 th class pass certificate along with other qualifications etc. 8. Admittedly, on 26.10.2015, this Court passed the interim orders granting stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notification dated 06.10.2015. During the course of final hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submitted that, in view of interim stay orders passed by this court, as of now, post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru-I Anganwadi Center, Thonduru Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, kept vacant. 9. During the course of final hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submitted that, in view of interim stay orders passed by this court, as of now, post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru-I Anganwadi Center, Thonduru Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, kept vacant. 9. A perusal of the instant case record clearly discloses that the petitioner possessed pre-requisite qualifications in terms of first notification dated 13.06.2015 for the post of Anganwadi Helper. Consequently, the Respondent Authorities also directed the petitioner to attend the interview for the post of Anganwadi Helper on 23.09.2015. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner appeared to the said interview on 23.09.2015, before the competent selection committee. While the petitioner was waiting for final results of the selection process, at that juncture, the second respondent issued the second notification dated 06.10.2015 whereby and where under, without mentioning any reasons unilaterally cancelled the first notification dated 13.06.2015. It is apt to note that though the second notification/impugned notification dated 06.10.2015 permitted the candidates, who have attended for the interview shall also apply for the said posts again, but no where the respondent authorities given reasons for cancellation of first notification dated 13.06.2015. In the absence of specific reasons for cancelling the first notification, issuing the second notification/impugned notification dated 06.10.2015 for the very same posts is not legal and valid. 10. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader attempted to impress upon this Court by referring the averments in the counter – affidavit by citing the G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 15.05.2015 (W.C & D.S.C) issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh parameters only, the 2 nd notification dated 06.10.2015 was issued by the respondent authorities, and cancelled by cancelling the earlier notification dated 13.06.2015. But, the said argument is not sound, why because, the impugned/second notification dated 06.10.2015 not at all disclosed any reasons for cancellation of the 1 st notification dated 13.06.2015. 11. In the absence of reasons in the impugned/second notification dated 06.10.2015 and trying to supplement the reasons to the impugned second notification by way of counter affidavit is against the well settled legal principles in M.S.Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others , [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court Constitutional Bench held at para No.8, which reads as under: “8. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others , [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court Constitutional Bench held at para No.8, which reads as under: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16). "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the orders of this Court dated 22.08.2024 in W.P.No.36232/2015 and he also submits that, in the above referred case and in the case on hand both are arising out of identical facts and circumstances relating to the very same impugned notification dated 06.10.2015. In the above cited case, it relates to the post of Anganwadi Helper, for Thonduru –III Anganwadi Center. Whereas, in the present case petitioner appeared for the interview for the post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru-I Anganwadi Center. 13. More so, as stated supra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader (Women and Child Welfare) fairly reported that in the instant case, the post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru - I Anganwadi Center, is still vacant in view of interim orders passed by this Court dated 26.10.2015. 13. More so, as stated supra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader (Women and Child Welfare) fairly reported that in the instant case, the post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru - I Anganwadi Center, is still vacant in view of interim orders passed by this Court dated 26.10.2015. Thus, by taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances involved in the lis, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: A. The impugned/second notification dated 06.10.2015 issued by the second respondent in respect of Anganwadi Helper Post at Thonduru-I, Anganwadi Center, Thonduru Village and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, is hereby set aside; B. The respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed to initiate logical steps in respect of the petitioner’s selection process for the post of Anganwadi Helper, Thonduru-I Anganwadi Center, Thonduru Village and Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, in pursuance of the interview conducted on 23.09.2015 in accordance with law; C. The respondents 1 to 3 are further directed to complete the above said process, within a period of four (04) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 14. With the above directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. In view of final orders passed in the main writ petition itself, no separate orders are need to be passed in I.A.No.2 of 2015 (W.P.M.P.No.46722 of 2015). There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.