1 APHC010573492017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 26989 OF 2017 Between: 1. A.Ramanamma, W/o A. Jayaramudu, Aged about 41 years, Occ: (Cook) Helper, Working in K.G.B.V. School, Talupula, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. P. Anjanamma, W/o P. Adinarayana Aged about 46 years, Working as Night Watchmen, K.G.B.V. School, Talupula, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The A P Kasthuribaa Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya, Society, Rajiv Vidya Mission, Rep. by its Secretary, Amaravathi, Vijayawada. 3. The District Collector & Chairman, Rajiv Vidya Mission, Andhra Pradesh Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Anantapur, Anantapur District. 4. The Project Officer, Andhra Pradesh Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Anantapur, Anantapur District. 5. The Girl Child Development Officer Andhra, Pradesh Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Anantapur, Anantapur District. 6. The Special Officer, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayam, Talapula, Anantapur District. ...Respondents 2 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the proceedings vide Lr.No.1160/B2/APSSA/ KGBV/2016, Dt.18.01.2017, terminating the petitioners without issuing any notice, without following any procedure and without assigning any valid reasons while addressing a letter to the Outsourcing Agency as illegal, arbitrary and also violative of principals of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Lr.No.1160/B2/APSSA/KGBV/2016, Dt.18.01.2017 issued by the 4th respondent in so far as the petitioners are concerned and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 5062 OF 2017 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 dt. 21.08.2017 in WPMP.No. 33534 of 2017 in WP.No. 26989 of 2017 and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 33534 OF 2017 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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Cook and Night Watchman in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayam, Talupula, Ananthapur District by suspending the proceedings Lr.No.1160/ B2 /APSSA/KGBV/ 2016, Dt.18.01.2017 issued by the 4th Respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass such other order or 3 orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: RAGHU BABU KALAMATA SC For Samagra Siksha Counsel for the Respondents: G SEENA KUMAR (SC FOR APEWIDC AND RVM SSA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) The Court made the following order: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.26989 OF 2017 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in issuing the proceedings vide Lr.No.1160/ B2 / APSSA / KGBV / 2016, Dt.18.01.2017, terminating the petitioner without issuing any notice, without following any procedure and without assigning any valid reasons while addressing a letter to the Outsourcing Agency as illegal, arbitrary and also violative of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Lr.No.1160/B2/APSSA/KGBV/2016, Dt.18.01.2017 issued by the 4th respondent in so far as the petitioners are concerned and to pass…..” 2. Heard Ms.Devi Sree Vastha, learned counsel representing Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 6 and perused the material available on record. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are appointed through contract basis as a cook and night 5 watchman respectively in the 2nd respondent society and working in Ananthapuram District in the same cadre way back from the year 2011, and they are discharging their services without any blemish. Learned counsel further submits that the 4th respondent issued the impugned orders vide Lr.No.1160/B2/APSSA/KGBV/2016, dated 18.01.2017, whereby and where under the 4th respondent through Assistant Enquiry Officer caused enquiry basing upon newspaper clippings behind back of petitioners at last, the petitioners and some other persons working on outsourcing basis were surrendered. 4. In nutshell, the petitioners’ services were terminated by virtue of impugned orders dated 18.01.2017 and the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the said orders dated 18.01.2017 of the 4th respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that without giving any prior notice, everything was done by the authorities without the knowledge of the petitioners and also she further stated that the impugned orders were issued after receiving the enquiry report of Girl Child Development Officer and AISCO of A.P.Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Ananthapuram (APSSA), but the said report was not 6 furnished to the petitioners so as to put forth their effective defence in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6 by reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that the impugned orders were issued only due to adverse remarks received and also due to adverse conduct of the petitioners and some other persons. Thus, the impugned orders are sustainable. 6. At the stage of admission, this Court granted interim orders on 21.08.2017. Consequent to the said interim orders, the petitioners are still continuing in service as on today. 7. By plain reading of the impugned orders dated 18.01.2017 issued by the 4th respondent it clearly discloses that the enquiry report, which is the basis for surrendering of the petitioners, has not been furnished to the petitioners. Another vital aspect is that the impugned order not disclosing about the notice that was served to the petitioners before passing the said order. Hence, the impugned orders are hit by principles of natural justice. 8. In this context, it is apt to note that, it is well settled legal principle that no decision shall be given against a party without 7 affording fair opportunity to defend the case. Infact, right from constitutional dictum held by five judges bench of the Apex Court in A.K Kriapak v. Union of India1 and also in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2 consistently followed by the Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court in catena of decisions. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, authoritatively laid down the legal position in the case of State Bank of India and Others v. Rajesh Agarwal and Others3 the Apex Court emphasized that the rule of audi alteram partem is an integral facet of Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot be excluded in the absence of an express statutory provision or by necessary implication. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that procedural fairness requires issuance of a prior notice, disclosure of adverse material, and grant of an effective opportunity of representation before arriving at a final decision. Any deviation from these requirements was held to be in clear breach of the principles of natural justice. 10. The rule of audi alteram partem, being an integral facet of the principles of natural justice to provide proper and fair justice, has 1 1969 (2) SCC 262 2 1978 (1) SCC 248 32023 (6) SCC 1 8 been affirmed that adherence to audi alteram partem is essential wherever rights are affected, and any violation not only vitiates the process but also defeats the very purpose of just administrative action by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent dictum in Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh4 held as under: “……71. The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere technical formality into a humane pursuit. It safeguards against arbitrary decision-making, and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics…...” “…...72. An allegation of bias, can only be proved if facts are established after giving an opportunity of hearing. This process requires a fair and transparent procedure in which the parties concerned are given an adequate opportunity to present their case. Such an opportunity allows the accused party or the affected individuals to respond to the allegations, provide evidence, and clarify any misgivings regarding the decision-making process. Therefore, for an allegation of bias to be proved, it is imperative that the procedural safeguards of a fair hearing are observed allowing for establishment of the relevant facts….” 11. In view of above well settled legal principles held by the Apex Court, the impugned orders dated 18.01.2017 passed by the 4th respondent are liable to be set aside on the ground of gross Violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 4(2025) SCC OnLineSC 179 9 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.01.2017 passed by 4th respondent are hereby set aside. However, the respondents’ authorities are at liberty to take action against the petitioners if they found any irregularity by exercising their powers strictly after following due process of law. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:24.12.2025 Rns 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.26989 of 2017 Date:24.12.2025 Rns