IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11024 of 2008 Between: V.Sreedevi W/o.Ramanaiah R/o.Vaddipalle, H/o,.Thalapula village Piler Mandal, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector Chittoor District 2 The Project Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme Project, Chittoor, Chittoor District 3 The Child Development Project Officer, Inegrated Child Development Scheme Project, Chinnagottigallu Chittoor District 4 A.Amarnath Reddy S/o.A.Krishna R/o.Reddivaripally, H/o.Thalapula village Piler Mandal, Chittoor 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 writ of mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.19/A/2008 dated 22.4.2008 issued by the respondent No.1 herein as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles, 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Anganwadi Worker for Talapula Vaddipalle Village, Chittoor District, vide proceedings, dated 30.08.2007, through the process of selection. The third respondent passed an order, dated 22.04.2008, removing the petitioner from service, on the ground that she is resident of that village, only from the date of application, and not earlier thereto. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare and learned counsel for the fourth respondent-Sarpanch, who filed caveat. The norms framed by the Government for appointment of Anganwadi Workers insist that the candidate must be resident of the village concerned. On being satisfied that the petitioner fulfils the conditions, the third respondent appointed her as Anganwadi Worker on 30.08.2007. Hardly one year had elapsed and the impugned order is passed removing the petitioner from service. The only allegation is that the petitioner is resident of the village, only from the date of application. This itself is somewhat ambiguous. At any rate, the petitioner was not put on notice, before the order of removal was passed. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the third respondent to examine the matter afresh and if it is found that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to law, the factum as well as the relevant provision shall be mentioned in the show cause notice. Any further action would depend on the final orders that are to be passed on a consideration of the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J. Dated:23.06.2008 GJ