Duvupalli Ramulappamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/31308/2018 · 2026-06-21
V Sujatha
body2018
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2018 DAILYLAW 1043 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2018 DAILYLAW 1043 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010652352018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31308/2018 Between:
1. DUVUPALLI RAMULAPPAMMA, W/O SANKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. ANGANWADI HELPER, JAGGAPURAM ANGANWADI CENTRE, GANTYADA ICDS PROJECT, R/O JAGGAPURAM VILLAGE, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMSELECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT COLLECTOR, CUM NOMINATED CHAIRPERSON OF SELECTION COMMITTEE, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT
4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.No.31308 of 2018
5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT, GANTYADA, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT
6. JAMMU SATYAVATHI, W/O B.NARASIMHA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC ANGANWADI WORKER, JAGGAPURAM VILLAGE, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO.6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 09.07.2025 VIDE IA.NO.2 OF 2018 IN WP.NO.31308 OF 2018. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the impugned action of the respondent No. 2 in issuing the notification dated 02.08.2018 for selection of Anganwadi Worker of Jaggapuram Anganwadi centre, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District in so far Jaggapuram Anganwadi worker post is concerned, as arbitrary, illegal, improper and contrary to the circular memos and instructions issued by the government in Memo No. 9207/ICDSAI/98 dated 23.12.1998, Memo No. 5771/KG/2006 dated 03.12.2010, Memo No. 5771/K3/2006 dated 05.01.2012 and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents No. 2 to 5 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment/promotion as Anganwadi worker of Jaggapuram village, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and to grant IA 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 Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in notification issued by the 2nd respondent dated 02.08.2018 in so far as the Jaggapuram Anganwadi worker post, Gantyada ICDS Project, Vizianagaram District is concerned, pending disposal of the writ Petition.
IA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pass order impleading Jammu Satyavathi, W/o B.Narsimha Naidu, Anganwadi
3 VS,J W.P.No.31308 of 2018
worker, Jaggapuram Village, Gantyada mandal, Vizianagaram District as Respondent No.6 in WP.No.31308 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 05.09.2018 in WPMP. No. 1/2018 in W.P. No. 31308/2018 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP)
2. PULIPATI RADHIKA The Court made the following:
4 VS,J W.P.No.31308 of 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:
“to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the impugned action of the respondent No. 2 in issuing the notification dated 02.08.2018 for selection of Anganwadi Worker of Jaggapuram Anganwadi centre, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District in so far Jaggapuram Anganwadi worker post is concerned, as arbitrary, illegal, improper and contrary to the circular memos and instructions issued by the government in Memo No. 9207/ICDSAI/98 dated 23.12.1998, Memo No. 5771/KG/2006 dated 03.12.2010, Memo No. 5771/K3/2006 dated 05.01.2012 and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents No. 2 to 5 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment/promotion as Anganwadi worker of Jaggapuram village, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and to grant”
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as anganwadi helper in Jaggapuram anganwadi centre, Jaggapuram village, Gantyada ICDS project, Vizianagaram district vide proceedings dated 38/2013, dated 04.06.2013 of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner passed SSC in the year 2017 and possesses all requisite qualifications for being appointed/promoted as anganwadi worker. 3. While the things stood thus, the anganwadi worker of Jaggapuram anganwadi centre got retired in the month of March, 2018
5 VS,J W.P.No.31308 of 2018
and as the post fell vacant, the petitioner, being fully qualified to the said post, submitted a representation dated 26.04.2018 to respondent Nos.2 to 4 requesting to consider her candidature for the post of anganwadi worker of Jaggapuram anganwadi centre.
The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of considering the representation submitted by the petitioner for promoting her as anganwadi worker as per circular issued by the Government in memo No.9207/ICDSAI/98, dated 23.12.1998, No.5771/KG/2006, dated 03.12.2010 and No.5771/K3/2006, dated 05.01.2012, the respondent authorities issued a notification dated 02.08.2018 calling for applications from eligible candidates, which is reserved for open category. However, pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner submitted an application; though the same was initially objected by the respondent authorities on the ground that she is barred by age, she was permitted to participate in the recruitment process in view of G.O.Rt.No.102, dated 28.03.2011 through which, the age limit was enhanced to 45. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in issuing a notification to fill up the vacant post of anganwadi worker of Jaggapuram anganwadi centre instead of promoting her to the said post, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 05.09.2018, this Court passed the following interim order:
“…Hence, there shall be interim stay of recruitment notification dated 02.08.2018 insofar to the post of
6 VS,J W.P.No.31308 of 2018
Anganwadi Worker in Jaggapuram Anganwadi Centre.”
5. The 5th respondent – Child Development Project Officer, Gantyada, Gantyada mandal, Vizianagaram district filed a detailed counter affidavit duly admitting the facts as stated by the petitioner and further stated that as on the date of passing of the interim order by this Court i.e. on 05.09.2018, the whole recruitment process pursuant to the notification dated 02.08.2018 was completed and one Smt. Jammu Satyavathi was selected and joined on duty on 30.08.2018 as anganwadi worker for Jaggapuram anganwadi centre. 6. Heard Ms. T. Sowmya Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. 7. Perused the entire material available on record.
Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 04.08.2020 through which the petitioner was instructed to join Jaggapuram anganwadi centre as anganwadi worker which is lying vacant and pursuant to the same, the petitioner is being continued to work as anganwadi worker till date. 8. As the case of the petitioner was already considered by respondents pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, this
7 VS,J W.P.No.31308 of 2018
Court is of the opinion that no further orders are necessary in the present writ petition. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 22.06.2026 Gss