IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6072 of 2008 Between: B. Swarnalatha, W/o. Neelakanta Reddy R/o. Magilichetla Thanda, Tanakallu Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Selection Committee of Anganwadi Workers, Ananthapur District, Rep. by Chairman, District Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District. 2 I.C.D.S. Project Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, District Committee of Anganwadi Workers, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 K. Lakshmi Devi W/o. Chandr Naik R/o. Mogilichetla Thanda, Tanakallu Mandal, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the 1st respondent in Progs. N.1652/A/08, dated 12.03.2008 canceling the appointment order in Progs. No.1652/A/07 dated 30.01.2008 issued in favour of the petitioner appointing her as Anganwadi Worker to the Anganwadi Center of Mogilichetla Thanda, Tanakallu Mandal, Anantapur District and appointing the 3rd respondent in her place as the Anganwadi Worker, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and Principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order of the 1st respondent in Progs. No.1652/A/07 dated 12.03.2008 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHARATH REDDY JUTUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker on 30.01.2007. The third respondent filed W.P.No.3032 of 2007 challenging the order of appointment of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of, leaving it open to the third respondent to make a representation to the first respondent, and the latter, in turn, was directed to examine the matter with reference to the relevant record. Stating to be as a measure of implementation of the orders of this Court, the first respondent issued proceedings, dated 12.03.2008, directing removal of the petitioner and appointing the third respondent as Anganwadi Worker. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri C.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the third respondent. On finding that the petitioner had fulfilled the requisite qualifications, the first respondent appointed her, as Anganwadi Worker. The third respondent, who was another applicant for that very post, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.3032 of 2007. The writ petition was disposed of, along with certain other writ petitions, directing that the aggrieved candidates can make representation before the first respondent with necessary documentary evidence and the first respondent, in turn, shall pass appropriate orders, after putting the aggrieved parties on notice. The first respondent issued proceedings, dated 12.03.2008, duly making a reference to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.3032 of 2007 and observing that the petitioner is a non-local and that she belongs to OC category. He has not only cancelled the order of appointment of the petitioner, but also appointed the third respondent as Anganwadi Worker in her place. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not put on notice before the impugned order was passed. In case, the first respondent had entertained any doubt as to the residence of the petitioner, he ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner requiring her to prove the relevant factor. However, he has not chosen to issue any notice. On this short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It shall be open to the first respondent to take necessary steps in accordance with law, duly issuing notice to the concerned parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.02.05.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}