THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18481 OF 2006 O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker in the year 1992, for Mosuru village. One year thereafter, she was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer, for that village. One after the other, complaints poured in, alleging that the petitioner is holding two public posts, even while several persons are languishing without any employment. The Project Officer, Child Welfare Project, the 2nd respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 17.8.2006, removing the petitioner from the post of Anganwadi worker. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that the impugned order was not preceded by any enquiry or show-cause notice, and that there is no prohibition in law, against the petitioner, to hold the two posts referred to above. Respondents 1 to 3 and the impleaded respondents, on the other hand, filed counter affidavits. It is narrated that as many as three memos were issued to the petitioner, directing her to explain as to why she shall not be removed from one of the posts, and in her explanation, the petitioner insisted that she shall be continued in both the posts. It is stated that the continuance of the petitioner as Anganwadi worker and Fair Price Shop dealer, is contrary to law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare, and learned counsel for the impleaded parties. The petitioner does not dispute that she is holding two public posts, viz; Anganwadi worker and Fair Price Shop dealer. Both the posts or offices are meant for the unemployed persons in the village. Once the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi worker, she cannot be treated as unemployed, for being considered for appointment as Fair Price Shop dealer. Whatever may have been the circumstances, under which she assumed both the posts, at least when notices were issued, the petitioner ought to have chosen one of them. Though it is true that the impugned order does not refer to any show-cause notice, the record, however, discloses that the petitioner was issued as many as three memos, and the impugned order was passed after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is needless to mention that the petitioner shall be continued as Fair Price Shop dealer, as long as her authorization is in force. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 24th June 2008 PAN