Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kaki Ramanamma, Nellore District vs Prl Secy, Social Welfarechild ... on 25 September, 2024
APHC010705822016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 4561/2016
Between:
Kaki Ramanamma, Nellore District ...PETITIONER
AND
Prl Secy Social Welfarechild Welf/aganwadi Hyd 3 Oth ...RESPONDENT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PALLE NAGESWAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV-CHILD WELFARE(AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2 to 4th Respondents herein propose to Terminating / threatening to remove the Service of the Petitioner as Anganiwadi Worker in elementary School, PottiPalem Village, pallepalem Anganwadi center, Nellore Rural Mandal & Nellore Dist. Andhra Pradesh. Without issuing Showcase Notice/ and making any allegation as illegal arbitrary and unjust, and against Principal of natural justice and violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently directed the 2 to 4th the Respondents herein not to take any coarse steps for removal / threatening to Termination of the Petitioner Service as Anganwadi Worker, in elementary School, PottiPalem Village, pallepalem Anganwadi center, Nellore Rural Mandal & Nellore Dist. Andhra Pradesh..."
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as anganwadi worker in the year 2002 in the elementary school, Pallepalem Centre, Nellore Rural Mandal and since then, the petitioner has been discharging duties to the utmost satisfaction of students and the authorities. While the matter being so, under the threat that she may be terminated by the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare.
4. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader has produced a copy of instructions of the District Women and Child Welfare and Empowerment Officer, SPSR Nellore District, vide Rc.No.98/A1/2024-25, dated 18.09.2024, as per which it can be seen that the petitioner never worked as anganwadi worker in the elementary school Pottepalem Village, Pallepalem Anganwadi center, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. It is further stated that there are five (5) anganwadi centers in Pottepalem Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District namely Pottapalem-I, Pottapalem-II, Pottapalem-1, Pottapalem-2 and Pottapalem Mini and the following persons are discharging their duties in the aforesaid anganwadi centers:
Sl. Name of the worker Name of the anganwadi Working No. center period
1. Smt. Pathri Venkata Ramanamma w/o Masthaniah Pottepalem-I 12.08.2011 To till date
2. Smt. Pandluru Kameswari w/o Penchalaiah Pottepalem-II 08.08.2011 To till date
3. Smt. Kareti Sailaja w/o Nellore Narayana Pottepalem-1 04.01.2007 To till date
4. Smt. Meriga Radha w/o Golla Chennaiah Pottepalem-Mini Anganwadi 08.08.2011 center To till date
5. Smt. Matamula Suneethamma w/o Pottepalem Pottepalem-2 07.11.2007 Sadhanandam To till date
5. It can further be seen that the petitioner is not an employee of the Women and Child Welfare Department and on an enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner is a worker in MPP School, Pottepalem appointed under mid day meals scheme which falls under Education Department and the petitioner was terminated by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 27.01.2016.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioner was never appointed as anganwadi worker in Pallepalem anganwadi center but however she is a worker in MPP School, Pottepalem appointed under mid day meals scheme, which comes under Education Department, this Court do not find any merits in the present writ petition and feels that the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 25.09.2024 GSS