IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 410 of 2007 Between: 1 K.Kavitha, w/o Krishnaiah, Code No.102, & M.P.T.C.Regetla, Kangal Mandal, nalgonda District. 2 N.Lakshmi, w/o Sataiah, Narketpalli Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 K.Prabhavathi, w/o Bharat Reddy, Persaipalli Village, Aravapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Integrated Child Development Seva Project, represented by its Project Officer, Nalgonda Rural Project, Nalgonda District. 2 Integrated Child & Women Development Seva Project, Tungaturthi, Nalgonda District. 3 Project Director, Integrated Development Seva Project, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary, Women & Child Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 5 Director, Women & Child Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 04-08-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction, directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings of the said G.O. and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit andproper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 410 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioners were appointed as Anganwadi Workers for the respective villages. In the Panchayat Raj Elections held in the recent past, the 1st petitioner contested for the oﬃce of MPTC, the 2nd petitioner for Ward Member and the 3rd petitioner for Sarpach and all of them were elected. The 1st respondent issued notices, dated 27.12.2006, requiring the petitioners to exercise the option either to continue as Anganwadi Workers or in the elected oﬃces and not both. The said notices were issued on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 04.08.2001. The petitioners feel aggrieved and challenge the G.O. itself The petitioners contend that there is no prohibition in law for them to contest for elected oﬃces, even while holding the posts of Anganwadi Workers. It is pleaded that the post of Anganwadi Worker is not a part of regular civil services and no objection was raised, when the petitioners contested in the elections. The respondents ﬁled counter aﬃdavit, stating inter alia that the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short ‘the Act’) prohibits the persons holding public oﬃces from contesting elections and G.O.MsNo.23 has only clariﬁed the position. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 07.03.1996 accepting some demands of the Anganwadi Workers. One such demand was that they must be permitted to hold elected offices, such as Ward Member, MPTC, Sarpach. This, however, was amended through G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 04.08.2001. Obviously, the clause contained in G.O.Ms.No.7, dated 07.03.1996, was contrary to the provisions of the Act. The anomaly was noticed and G.O.Ms.No.23, dated 04.08.2001 was issued, deleting the said clause. The petitioners are not able to point out the provision, which confers any fundamental or legal right upon them to contest in the elections. In clear terms, the Act prohibits the persons holding public oﬃces from contesting in the elections. An Anganwadi Worker is appointed by the Government on a ﬁxed monthly salary. Its functions are purely public in nature. At any rate, what becomes material is the relevant provision in the Act and through administrative instructions or Government Orders, the provisions cannot be defeated. Strictly speaking, the election of the petitioners was liable to be set aside. The respondents gave an option to the petitioners to choose between the post of Anganwadi Worker and the elected oﬃce. This Court is not inclined to agree with the contentions of the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are granted two (2) weeks’ time to exercise their option and in default, it shall be open to the 1st respondent to pass orders, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________ 29.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 410 of 2007 Date: 29.08.2008 JSU