\ \ r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) A WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI ' WRIT PETITION NO: 1140 OF 2025 o Between: G. Obulamma, W/o Prasad, Anganwadi Helper, Aged about 39 years, R/o D.No. 13-73, Neelakantapuram Madakasira Village, Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare (ICDS Department), Secretariat, Amaravati. The District Collector/Chairman, Selection Committee, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Project Director, District Women and Child Development Project, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Child Development Project Officer, (ICDS Department), Madakasira (Satyasai District) Project, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...RESPONDENTS ^ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI and call for the records pertaining to the termination progs.No 6/A/2025/ICDS/ dated 12-12-2024 of the 4*^ respondent and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to function Anganwadi worker of Anganwadi center situated at K Palam village may as mini Madakasira mandal Sathya sai District and as this Hon’ble Court as such other order or orders may deem fit and proper. jA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i CPC praying that in the circumstances may be respondent in to continue center Madakasira mandal of the above Writ Petition. / in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to suspend the termination her progs.No 6/A/2025/ICDS/ order passed by the 4*'" dated 12-12-2024 and allow her as mini anganwadi helper at K.Palem Village Sathya Sai District pending disposal Counsel for the Petitioner- Counsel for the Respondent Nos. SRI V. SRINIVASULA REDDY 1 to4:GP FOR WOMEN development and CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following; ORDER APHC010015272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1140/2025 Between: 1.G OBULAMMA, W/0 PRASAD , ANGANWADI HELPER, AGED R/0 D.NO. 13-73, NEELAKANTAPURAM ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ABOUT 39 YEARS MADAKASIRA VILLAGE, MANDAL, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE (ICDS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJEET, ANANTAPUR DISTRIET, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4.THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJEET OFFIEER, (ICDS DEPARTMENT), MADAKASIRA (SATYASAI DISTRICT) PROJECT, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 issue writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of , _ Writ of CERTIORARI and call for the records pertaining to the termination SRS,J W.P.No.1140 of 2025 progs.No 6/A/2025/ICDS/ dated 12-12-2024 of the 4th respondent and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as mini Anganwadi worker of Anganwadi center situated at K Palam village Madakasira mandal Sathya sai District and as such lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VSRINIVASULA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Progs.No.6/A/2024/ICDS/dated 12.12.2024 (Ex.PI), whereby terminating the petitioner as Mini Anganwadi Worker, K. Palyam Village, Madakasira, Sri Sathya Sai District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri V. Srinivasula Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare appeared for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a show-cause vide memo/A/ICDS.2024-25, dated 02.10.2024 (Ex.PII) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 02.10.2024. Without considering the explanation, the order of termination impugned was issued. 3. r SRS,J W.P.No.1140 of 2025 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that upon considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after getting approval from the District Selection Committee, the impugned order was issued. 5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s appointment as Mini Anganwadi Worker at K. Palyam Village, Madakasira, Sri Sathya Sai District; issuance of a show-cause memo dated 02.10.2024 and explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.10.2024. In the proceedings impugned, the 8'^ reference is the show-cause memo and the 9^'' reference is the explanation. However, in the proceedings impugned, nothing was discussed either regarding the contents of the show- cause memo or the explanation submitted by the petitioner. No reasons were also assigned. It is a settled principle of law that reasons and heart and soul of every order. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of lndia\ the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the judgment in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case, it is held as follows; 6. “It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The 1 1990(4) SCC 594 4 rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like rH)0(4) see 594 4^ SRS,J ' W.P.No.1140 of 2025 the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law”. 7. At Para 35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows. "Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by its while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi- judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it Is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to Indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points In controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater In a case where the 5 order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge”. Given the discussion supra, the proceedings impugned do not indicate the consideration of contents of either the show-cause memo or the explanation. Apart from that, no reasons were also assigned. Hence, the proceedings impugned are liable to be set aside. 8. SRS,J W.P.No.1140 of 2025 9. Accordingly, the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Progs.No.6/A/2024/ICDS/dated 12.12.2024 (Ex.P1) are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.4. Learned respondent No.4 shall consider the contents of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and a reasoned order, within four (04) weeks. pass 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-VSAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare (ICDS Department), State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravati. 2. The District Collector/Chairman, Selection Committee, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Project Director, District Women and Child Development Project, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, (ICDS Department), Madakasira (Satyasai District) Project, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri V Srinivasula Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Women Development and Child Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb ■ HIGH COURT , DATED:22/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1140 of 2025 O 13 FEB 2025 . Current oeciion X o Co, DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS