Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kamana Sulochana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 January, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
[ 2607 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI . (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE Between: Kamana Sulochana, W/o Venkata Giri Babu, aged about 36 years, r/o Idupulapadu village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. The Chief Executive Officer, Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada. 4. The Project Director, District Rural Development Authority, Prakasam District, Ongole. 9. YSR Kranti Padam, District Rural Development Authority, rep. by its Assistant Project Manager Inkollu, Prakasam District. 6. The Cluster Coordinator, Idupulapadu cluster o/o the Mandal Mahila Samakhya, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District. 7. Idupulapadu Village Organisation, Idupulapadu village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District, rep. by its President. 8. Bhavanam Padmavati, W/o Veera Reddy, Ankireddy Palem Village, Idupulapadu Gram Panchayat Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District. On Respondent. 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, to declare the action of respondents No. 3 to 6 in not allowing the petitioner to discharge duties as Village Organization Assistant (VOA) in the 7 respondent society without issuing any notice and in not paying salary is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, viclation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently seeking a direction to the respondents not to object the petitioner in discharging duties as VOA, Idupulapadu Village Organization, Idupulapadu, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District. IA 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 direct the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner as Village Organization Assistant, Idupulapadu Village Organization, Idupulapadu, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District in terms of the resolution passed by the 7 respondent dt.21-11-2020 and permit her to draw the salary, pending disposal of WP 544 of 2021, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s Kavitha Gottipati, -Advocate for the Petitioner and GP for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the Respondents, the Court made the following. ORDER:
I i dents 3 and 4 "Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respond represented that they are not interfering with the duties of the petitioner, Recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel the following interim order is passed:-
"It is the case of petitioner that she was appointed as Village Organization Assistant (VOA), Idupulapadu-3 Village Organization, Idupulapadu, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District vide resolution, dated 24.11.2020, whereby the Gram Panchayat agreed to engage the services of the petitioner Gorantla Alekhya in future and the same is supported by the VOA MSACCS Detailed report as on 24.11.2020 which shows that the petitioner is qualified and possessed Post Graduation Certificate and appointed as VOA SHG.
The petitioner's services are not terminated as no resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat terminating her services as VOA SHG. But, the 4"
respondent is not allowing her to discharge her duties without terminating her services and trying to appoint the 8" respondent who allegedly not qualified for being appointed as VOA SGH, who passed 8°" Standard as per VOA MSACCS Detailed Report as on 25.11.2020. The appointment of 8" respondent is illegal or not,cannot be decided while granting interim relief. But, only on the ground that the petitioner's services were not terminated by passing any resolution by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner be allowed to continue in service and the respondents 4 and 5 shall pay salary till her services are terminated, in accordance with law, as an interim measure."
Post the matter after Sankranti Vacation, 2021 for filing counter-affidavit by the respondents." -
Sd/-M.Suryanadha Reddy ASSISTA I'TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, State of Andhra Pradesh. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.
The Chief Executive Officer, Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.
4. The Project Director, District Rural Development Authority, Prakasam District, Ongole.
5. The Assistant Project Manager, Inkollu, YSR Kranti Padam, District Rural Development Authority, PrakaSam District.
6. The Cluster Coordinator, Idupulapadu cluster o/o the Mandal Mahila Samakhya, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District.
7. Idupulapadu Village Organisation, Idupulapadu village, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District, rep. by its President.
8. Bhavanam Padmavati, W/o Veera Reddy, Ankireddy Palem Village, Idupulapadu Gram Panchayat Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Addresses 1 to 8 by RPAD)
9. One CC to M/s. Kavitha Gottipati, Advocate [OPUC]
10. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
11.One spare copy MM on HIGH COURT MSM,J DATED:07/01/2021 NOTE: POST THE MATTER AFTER SANKRA AFFIDAVIT BY THE RESPONDENTS ORDER WP.No.544 of 2021 INTERIM DIRECTION NTI VACATION, 2021 FOR FILING COUNTER-
Se 183 peu re nee a