APHC010354752019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 16907 AND 3099 OF 2019 Writ Petition No.16907 of 2019: Between: 1. P. VANAJA KUMARI, W/O. KRISHNA MOHAN RAO, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/O. Y.V. LANKA (V), ELAMANCHILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/CHAIRMAN, , WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (ICDS), WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (ICDS), MOGALTHUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. GOLLA INDIRANI, W/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE . NOT KNOWN, OCC. AGANVADI WORKER, AGANVADI CENTRE NO.148, PATHA HARIJANAPETA, Y.V. LANKA VILLAGE, ELAMANCHILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MORTHA SRINU BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP) 2. EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO The Court made the following: 2 Writ Petition No.3099 of 2019: Between: 1. P. VANAJA KUMARI, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC HOMEMAKER, R/O. Y.V. LANKA (V), ELAMANCHILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WOMEN AND CHIDWELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/CHAIRMAN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (ICDS), WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU. 4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME (ICDS), MOGALTHUR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No.16907 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the termination of services of the petitioner as Anganvadi Worker of Anganvadi Centre No.148 of ICDS, Mogaltur Project, West Godavari vide Memo No.804577/A1/2017, dated 22-07-2017 of the 2nd Respondent as illegal and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the appointment of 5th Respondent vide proceedings No.02/ICDS/2017 dated 24.10.2017 of the 4th Respondent as Anganwadi Worker of Anganwadi Centre No.148 of ICDS, Mogaltur Project and further direct the Respondent No.2 to reinstate into service as Anganvadi Worker.” 3 Writ Petition No.3099 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the Representation dated 29-10-2018 for reinstatement into the service as Anganvadi Worker, Y.V. Lanka-2, Anganvadi Centre bearing Code No.148 as arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the representation dated 29-10-2018 for reinstatement into the service as Anganvadi Worker, Y.V. Lanka-2, Anganvadi Centre bearing Code No.148.” 2. Heard Sri Mortha Sirnu Babu, Sri B.Sesibhushan Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare and Sri Eathakota Venkata Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.5. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was terminated from the post of Anganvadi Worker due to an incident occurred, wherein, a small boy aged 4 years died due to drowning. Learned counsel would further submit that the District Collector, who is the Authority of the Committee has not passed any order about the delinquency of the Petitioner. Based on the report of the Tahsildar, the District Collector had issued proceedings for removal of the Petitioner. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petitions. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare would submit that show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, for which the Petitioner submitted her explanation. Thereafter, an 4 enquiry was conducted. As her explanation was not satisfactory, by passing a speaking order, the services of the Petitioner were terminated. It is submitted that there are no merits in the petitions. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the functions of Anganvadi Worker are so important and the said post cannot be left unfilled. As such, the Government have taken a decision to fill up the said post. It is further submitted that Respondent No.5 has been working in the said post since 2017. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 would submit that, after removal of the Petitioner, a notification was issued for the recruitment of Anganvadi Worker and Respondent No.5 had submitted an application, appeared for the interview and was appointed through selection process. Learned counsel would further submit that, the rights of Respondent No.5 have to be protected. Respondent No.5 is not simply working in the place of the Petitioner but through the recruitment process, she has been working since last eight years. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, an opportunity was given to the Petitioner to explain the things happened that led to the incident of death of a small boy aged four years. As the explanation submitted by the Petitioner was not satisfactory, having conducted an enquiry and after taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the guilt of the Petitioner is proved, the Authorities had taken a decision for the termination of 5 the Petitioner from the post of Anganvadi Worker. The record further shows that, the said post is not vacant and the same was filled up by Respondent No.5, who has been working since eight years. 7. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the view that, impugned order of termination of the Petitioner from the post of Anganvadi Worker, does not brook any interference of this Court. The petitions lack merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:01.05.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Nos. 16907 AND 3099 OF 2019 Dt.01.05.2025 Dinesh