IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) \\ THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9399 OF 2025 Between: 1. Pithani Aparna, W/o P.K.N.Raju, aged about 35 years, R/o D.No 4-364, Gaigolupadu, Kakinada Rural, Kakinada District. Koppisetti Kumari, C/o Nooka Raju, R/o D.No 2-321, Surya Rao Peta, Kakinada Rural, Kakinada District. 2. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. Society For Elimination of Rural poverty (SERP), Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, II floor, NTR Administrative Block, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. The District Collector, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. The Project Director, District Rural Development Authority (DRDA) Kakinada. Asst. Project Director, District Rural Development Authority (DRDA) Kakinada. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...Respondents 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 issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 4th and 5th Respondents in appointing petitioners as VOAs of Thimmapuram and Parakalava Villages, Kakinada Rural Mandal Kakinada District is illegal, and violative of consequently direct the arbitrary, contrary to the provision of MACS Act 1995 article 14 ,21 of the constitution of India, Respondents to appoint the petitioners as VOAs Thimmapuram and Parakaiava Viilages, Kakinada Rurai Mandai, Kakinada District. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be petitioners as VOAs of Mandal, Kakinada pleased to direct the 5th Respondent to allow the Thimmapuram and parakalava villages Kakinada Rural District pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. S APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: GP FOR SERVICES Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,4&5: SRI M HARI BABU SC SERP I FOR The Court made the following order: 1 CGR, J, I W.PNo.9399of 2025 I APHC010186192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9399/2025 Between: Pithani Aparna and another ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.S.APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief; to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 4‘^ and 5*^^ Respondents in appointing petitioners as VOAs of Thimmapuram and Parakalava Villages, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provision of MACS Act, 1995, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioners as VOAs, Thimmapuram and Parakalava Villages, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District and to pass....” CGR, J. W.P.No.9399 of 2025 2. 1®* petitioner has joined as Community Facilitator on 24.01.2007 in Thimmapuram Village, and later in 2021 he came to be appointed as Village Organization Assistant (“V.O.A.”). So also, 2-^ petitioner joined as V.O.A. on 12.09.2014. The aforesaid appointments were in terms of resolutions passed by the respective Village Samaikyas. Basing certain news item, enquiry came to be conducted and 26 V.O.As. on were terminated in Kakinada, of which 16 V.O.As. were taken back into duties leaving out the remaining 10 members. Petitioners had submitted representation to take them back in the duties as was done to other V.O.As., in pursuance to which, the 4**^ respondent by proceedings i Rc.No.D/1B/23/2025, dated 14.02.2025, called Mandal Women’s Empowerment to conduct in upon the President of enquiry and submit resolutions of the Village Organisations for taking further action. After conducting the said enquiry, on 05.03.2025, Parakalava Village Organisation passed resolution in favour of 2^^ petitioner and 06.03.2025, Thimmapuram Village Organization passed resolution i favour of 1"‘ petitioner, to take them back to duties. The said resolutions were forwarded to the 5‘'' respondent through Mandal Empowerment. However, the 5*^ respondent is not ratifying the same. Petitioners are not admitted to duties. Aggrieved by the writ petition is filed. on in Women’s same, present 3 CGR, J. W.PNo-9399 of 2025 Heard Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the 3. petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents 1 and 3; and Sri M.Hari Babu, learned Standing Counsel for SERF, appearing for the respondents 2, 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that once 4. resolutions passed by the respective Village Organizations, the same having been forwarded to the 5*'^ respondent, it is incumbent on him to implement the same, however, in the present case, the petitioners are not admitted to duties. Leaned Standing Counsel for SERF appearing for respondents 2, 4 and 5 would submit that the duty of the 5^*^ respondent is only to implement the resolutions passed by the Village Organizations as they are not competent to either admit or remove any VO.As and in the present case, the resolutions passed in favour of petitioners are not received by them through proper channel i.e.. Village Organizations. 5. Fact remains that petitioners were taken back into duties by respective Village Organizations by passing appropriate resolutions. This exercise was undertaken in pursuance to the directions issued by the 4^'^ respondent. Once the resolutions being passed and that 6. CGR, J. W.P.No.9399 of 2025 petitioners are to be taken back into duties, it was only a formality to complete the process. 7. Therefore, this Court finds that the objection raised by the 5*^ respondent is mere technical and being aware of the fact that there are resolutions passed in favour of the petitioners, he ought to have acted on it and given effect to the same. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents 4 and 5 to act upon the resolution, dated 05.03.2025, passed by the Parakalava Village Organization in favour of 2"^^ petitioner and the resolution, dated 06.03.2025, passed by Thimmapuram Village Organization, in favour of 1 petitioner and allow the petitioners to attend duties in terms of the said resolutions. 8. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT) REGISTRAR nSk'O^lCER //TRUE COPY// SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Society For Elimination of Rural poverty (SERP), II floor, NTR Administrative Block, Vijayawada, Andhra 3. The District Collector, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Project Director, District Rural Development Authority (DRDA) Kakinada. 5. The Asst. Project Director, District Rural Development Authority (DRDA) Kakinada. 6. e CC to Sri. S Appadhara Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri. M Hah Babu SC for SERP [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP For Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:17/04/2025 \ ORDER WP.No.9399 of 2025 1 ^ i;urreiii iiection ALLOWING THE WP AT THE ADMISSION STAGE WITHOUT COSTS