Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chatla Bhagyam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 October, 2025

APHC010476432023

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                    [3460]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)


                   TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
                      TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                                 PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 24744/2023

Between:

  1. CHATLA BHAGYAM, S/O. PANAKALA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS,
     CONTRACTOR, R/O. H.NO. 34-2-12A, BELLAPU SOBHANADRI
     LIBRARY STREET, KASTURIBAI PET, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

                                                           ...PETITIONER

                                   AND

  1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND
     BUILDINGS    DEPARTMENT,    SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
     AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

  2. A P ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 5TH FLOOR, 502, A.P.
     STATE HOD BUILDING, BANDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS
     CHIEF ENGINEER (R AND B) STATE HIGHWAY 135 MANAGING
     DIRECTOR.

  3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, R AND B CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA.

  4. DISTRICT   TRANSPORT            OFFICER,    KRISHNA      DISTRICT,
     MACHILIPATNAM.

  5. THE   TRANSPORT           COMMISSIONER,     ANDHRA       PRADESH,
     VIJAYAWADA.

  6. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER AND FINANCIAL ADVISOR, O/O
     THE   TRANSPORT   COMMISSIONER,   ANDHRA    PRADESH,
     VIJAYAWADA.
                                      2

   7. PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, WORKS AND ACCOUNTS, DOOR
      NO. 29-2-52, MANASA COMPLEX, RAMAMANDIRAM STREET,
      VENKATESWARA RAO STREET, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA,
      KRISHNA DISTRICT- 520002

                                                       ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the 5th respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.2919/A2/2022
dt.11-09-2023 wherein removed the petitioner from service is illegal,
arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Rule 2C of AP CS (CC and A) Rules, 1991
and violative of Article 14 ,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India
consequently set-aside the same by directing the respondents to continue
the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and pass such
other order.

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

      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 petitioner in service
by suspending the operation of the proceedings Rc.No.2919/A2/2022
dt.11-09-2023 of the 5th respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ
Petition and to pass such other order.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. OMKAR D

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR SERVICES III

The Court made the following:
                                          3

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                     WRIT PETITION No.24744 of 2023

ORDER:

1. In the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is questioning the action of Respondent No.5 in issuing Proceedings Rc.No.2919/A2/2022, dated 11.09.2023 removing the Petitioner from service, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The brief facts are as follows;

3. Respondent No.1 had issued G.O.Ms.No.24, School Education (Exams) Department, dated 15.02.2019 framing certain Rules for TET- cum-Teachers Recruitment Test (TET-cum-TRT) to the post of School Assistants (Special Education) under Inclusive Education for Disabled Children at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) under the Andhra Pradesh Samagra Shiksha. Pursuant to the said G.O, Respondent No.2 had issued Notification No.786/TRC-1/2018, dated 15.02.2019 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of School Assistants (Special Education) in Government and Zilla Parishad Schools in the State through DSC.

4. The Petitioner applied for the post of School Assistant (Special Education) under SC category with 54 marks and got 30th rank, selected and posted in ZPHS, Rentala, Rentachinthala Mandal, Palnadu District. 4

5. While so, after finalization of selection process and issuing posting orders in favour of the Petitioner, Respondent No.7 filed W.P.No.20917 of 2020 before this Court questioning the eligibility and appointment of the Petitioner and the same is pending disposal.

6. It is further stated that the Petitioner has completed her S.S.C., in the year 1990, Intermediate in the year 2001, B.A., in the year 2005 and B.Ed., in September, 2010. While so, Respondent No.7 made a complaint against the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner studied B.Ed., course as a regular student in the year 2010-2011 without intimation to the department while attending IERT duties. Pursuant to the said complaint, Respondent No.5 has issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner vide Proceedings in Rc.No.1382/A4/2022, dated 15.02.2022.

7. The Petitioner submitted her explanation to the said show-cause notice on 05.03.2022 stating that she was appointed as IERT on contract basis under Samagra Shiksha in the year 2008 and as IERT she has to visit differently abled children's home for convenience of children as per the orders of the authorities to teach the classes and she attended B.Ed., classes during morning hours and thereafter discharged her duties as per duty chart allotted by the concerned M.E.O. Thereafter, Respondent No.5 has not initiated any action against the Petitioner. 5

8. The Petitioner contended that another show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner vide Rc.No.2919/A2/2002, dated 24.06.2022 by Respondent No.5 stating that as to why the Petitioner shall not be terminated from service as she got selection as School Assistant (Special Education) illegally with service weightage marks as IERT and called for explanation from her. The Petitioner submitted her explanation to the said show-cause notice also on 05.07.2022 stating that she obtained necessary permission from the management of Coromandel B.Ed., College, Medikonduru to attend the classes during morning hours and thereafter she attended her duties as IERT.

9. The Petitioner contended that pursuant to the complaint made by Respondent No.7 to Respondent No.3 through 'Spandana' on 16.05.2022, Respondent No.5 has issued Proceedings in Rc.No.2919/A2/2022, dated 11.08.2022, wherein two Articles of Charge were framed.

10. The Petitioner submitted her explanation to the said charge-memo on 23.08.2022 as in the explanation offered to the show-cause notices.

11. The Petitioner submits that without conducting any enquiry by appointing enquiry officer and without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the disciplinary authority has straight away issued final show- cause notice vide Rc.No.2919/A2/2022, dated 20.07.2023 as to why the Petitioner shall not be removed from service.

6

12. The Petitioner submitted her explanation to the said show-cause notice also on 02.08.2023 explaining the same reasons as stated supra. However, without considering the explanations offered by the Petitioner to the show-cause notices and charge-memo and without verifying the material on record, Respondent No.5 has issued impugned proceedings dated 11.09.2023 removing the Petitioner from service. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

13. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader would submit that the Petitioner while working as IERT had studied B.Ed., course without obtaining necessary permission from the appointing authority at that point of time and therefore the Petitioner was removed from service.

14. Heard the respective counsels.

15. The Articles of Charge read as under;

Article-1: Smt.Chatla Bhagyam, SA (Spl. Edn.,) Rentachintala got selected as SA (Spl. Edn.) illegally with service weightage marks as IERT.

Article-2: Smt.Chatla Bhagyam while working as IE Research teacher (MR) in SSA and getting salary from SSA, she joined regular B.Ed., Course in Acharya Nagrajuna University, Guntur and completed her B.Ed., during 2009-2011 as a regular candidate. Hence this charge.

7

16. The crux of the allegation against the Petitioner is that she had pursued B.Ed., Course in Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur, as a regular candidate and on the basis of the said allegation she was selected as School Assistant with service weightage marks. In the explanation to the articles of charge as well as to the show-cause notices, the Petitioner had clearly stated that she had attended the B.Ed., Course on regular basis as she attended the classes in the mornings at Coromandel B.Ed., College, Medikonduru and thereafter attended to the duties as I.E. Research Teacher.

17. It is stated that as was attending the duties as I.E. Research Teacher, there was shortage of attendance to write final examinations and the Petitioner had paid additional fee for the same to enable her to write the examination. These aspects were not taken note of in the impugned order and the impugned order is bereft of any reasons.

18. Secondly, as per the Notification, the weightage will be given to Inclusive Education Research Teachers, who are working in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), Andhra Pradesh and a weightage of 0.5 mark (1/2) for every one completed year subject to a maximum of 5 marks will be given.

19. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner had worked as I.E. Research Teacher in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) from the year 2009 to 2019 and as there is no allegation from the concerned authorities under Sarva 8 Siksha Abhiyan that the Petitioner did not work during the said period. In the absence of any such allegation, the weightage given to the Petitioner in the selection process cannot be faulted.

20. Hence, the present Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions;

(i) The impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.2919/A2/2022, dated 11.09.2023 issued by Respondent No.5 is set-aside;

(ii) The Petitioner shall be reinstated into service as School Assistant (Special Education) within a period of two (2) months from today;

(iii) The Petitioner shall not be entitled for the salary from the date of impugned order till the date of her reinstatement into service;

(iv) However the period from the date of impugned order till the date of reinstatement of the Petitioner shall be counted for the purpose of seniority and fixation of pay;

(v) No order as to costs.

21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.10.2025 IS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 24744 of 2023 Dt. 07.10.2025 IS