A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9620 OF 2021 Between; D. Vijaya Bharathi, D/o Veerabhadra Rao, Aged about 35 years, Inclusive Education Resource Person (lERP) (formerly called as Inclusive Education Resource Teacher) Bhavitha School, Addatheegala, East Godavari District (under orders of termination) ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, represented by its State Project Director, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Additional Project Co-ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, East Godavri, Kakinada. District Collector and Chairman, Samagra Siksha, East Godavari District at Kakinada. District Educational Officer, East Godavari District at Kakinada. Mandal Education Officer, Addatheegala Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc .No.248967 S SA-IEOAPMT (IE-A)/2/2019-SA (B)S SA-EG, dated 31.12.2020 issued by the Additional Project Co-ordinator, Samgra Siksha, East Godavari, Kakinada terminating the services of the petitioner is wholly illegal. arbitrary, without jurisdiction, without application of mind violative of .. Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative of principles of natural Justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service as Inclusive Education Resource Person, Bavitha School, Addatheegala, East Godavari District. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.248967 SSA-IEOAPMT (lE- A)/2/2019-SA (B)SSA-EG, dated 31.12.2020 issued by the Additional Project Co-ordinator, Samgra Siksha, East Godavari, Kakinada with a direction to the Respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Inclusive Education Resource Person, Bavitha School, Addatheegala, East Godavari District by disposing of the representation of the Petitioner, dated 6-1-2021. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1 Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATIOJ Counsel for the Respondents: M/s R. SUDHA RANI, SC for SAMGRA SIKSHA The Court made the following order: APHC010173722021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9620/2021 Between; ...PETITIONER D. Vijaya Bharathi, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1. ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHI KSHA) 2.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 3.GP FOR SERVICES I 4.. The Court made the following; ORDER:- Heard Ms. Adapa Ramya Sahithi Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services I, Sri Sunkara Charan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Revanuru Sudha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Samagra Siksha, and learned Government Pleader for School Education. \ 2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the services as Inclusive Education Resource respondent withdrawing the agreement for Teacher(IERT) Non Bhavitha centre, Addateegala. 3. The petitioner was appointed as lERT in Non-bhavitha School, i . She was selected through a regular selection process. The appointment was on contract basis extendable from time to time. in 2011. 4. It is stated that the 3'“'^ respondent issued proceedings dated 2020 stating that a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging that 7-06- without having sufficient educational qualifications the petitioner was recruited in the service. Therefore the petitioner was asked to appear before the authorities to explain. The petitioner appeared and submitted her explanation dated 26-6-2020 stating that after, the initial appointment in 2011, the petitioner was asked to submit the original marks list and certificate issued by Rehabilitation Council of lndia( RCI). Since the petitioner had lost the original certificate, she had to obtain certified copies and submit the same before the authorities. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted her explanation notice dated 7-06-2020. Thereafter the respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 31-12-2020 terminating the petitioner from to the service. 5. It is contended that the impugned proceedings refer to a show cause notice dated 30-07-2020 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why she should not be terminated from service for non fulfillment of the stipulations mentioned in the appointment order dated 26-2-2014 and the reply of the petitioner dated 1-09-2020 of the petitioner. It is contended that none of the said proceedings were served on the petitioner. It is contended that none of the proceedings referred to in the impugned proceedings i.e., show cause notice dated 30-07-202^1reply dated 1-09-2020, and the enquiry report dated 25-02-2020 were served on the petitioner. It is further argued the impugned order was passed acting on the directions of the 4'^ respondent 6. The 3'"^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the show notice dated 30-7-2020 was sent to the petitioner through post and the was received by the petitioner and she has also submitted her explanation 1-09-2020. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit it is stated that both the notice dated 30-07-2020 and the reply of the petitioner dated 1-09-2020 were in connection to the submission of original certificates of educational qualification and the same do not relate to the termination proceedings. cause same on 7. Considered the rival submissions. The notice dated 30-07-2020 refers to the directions of the collector to issue show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the petitioner should not be terminated from service for non submission of the certificates of educational qualification and further called for submission of all the original certificates of certificates of her , educational qualifications within the stipulated time under the said notice. > Further, the impugned proceedings of 30-12-2020 also refer to the directions of the 4th respondent, to terminate the petitioner from service. None of the proceedings depicts the application of the mind by the 4 3rd respondent. The 3'^ respondent acted solely based on the note order^ of the 4th respondent dated 28-01-2020. Thus, the proceedings are vitiated by the disciplinary authority. The authority for non-application of mind exercising the jurisdiction of having regard to the facts and ci a disciplinary authority must act independently Circumstances of the case, and exercise complying with the directions discretion cast upon it rather than superiors without applying their mind, and unsustainable. Having regard to the 2020, impugned in the writ petition i liberty to pass orders afresh i of the rendering the proceedings invalid same, the order dated 31-12- is set aside and the respondents are at in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. It is stated that 8. pursuant to the interim directions of the petitioner is being continued i this Court dated 18.06.2021 in service, to continue, the petitioner i The respondents are hereby directed in service till passing of further orders, if any. 9. With the above observations, be no order as to costs. the writ petition is allowed. There shall As a sequel, interlocutory applications ’ P^riding if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANTK^ISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ^ Secretary, School Education Department, State of Andhra i^radesh. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2- The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3- The Additional Project Co-ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Godavri, Kakinada. Andhra Pradesh , East 4. The District Collector and Chairman, Samagra Siksha, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 5. The District Educational Officer, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 6. The Mandal Education Officer, Addatheegala Mandal, East Godavari District. 7. One CC to Sri Adapa Ramya Sahithi Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] )^One CC to Sri R. Sudha Rani, SC for Samgra Siksha [OPUC] 9 Two CCs to GP for School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Services -1, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 10. [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies RAM s HIGH COURT 1 DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.9620 of 2021 eo mi Nfir £ i g ^^ONV dOi: I 13 JUN 20?5 'SsA -Ar m 05 ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS