Anganwadi Worker. - under G.O. Ms. No. 28, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 2.12.2004, the Committee selected and appointed the 1st respondent-writ petitioner by order dated 8.1.2009 as Anganwadi Worker. = since the issue of eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner still remains to be decided by the competent authority, without interfering with the order impugned, we dispose of the writ appeal by further directing the District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, the 2nd respondent herein, to place the representation of the appellant and the issue with regard to eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner before the Committee as constituted under G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above, and as duly revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012 to enable the said Committee to consider the eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to hold the said post of Anganwadi worker of Badapuram Village in accordance with law. We hope and trust that the said Committee will follow principles of natural justice and will give notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.


HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA
AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS  V. AFZULPURKAR

Writ Appeal No.147 of 2013

DATED: 15-03-2013

Between:
K. Rajeswari

                   …  Appellant

And                                                                                                     

B. Kumari,
R/o. Badapuram Village,
Darakonda Mandal,
Prakasam District and others.
                             … Respondents



                                                                           





















HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA
AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS  V. AFZULPURKAR

 

Writ Appeal No. 147 of 2013


JUDGMENT(per the Acting Chief Justice Sri N.V. Ramana)


        This appeal filed by the appellant-4th respondent questions the order of the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 601 of 2010 by order dated 29.10.2010.
        We have hard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
        The facts of the case disclose that by following procedure
under G.O. Ms. No. 28, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 2.12.2004, the Committee selected and appointed the 1st respondent-writ petitioner by order dated 8.1.2009 as Anganwadi Worker.  
It appears that the appellant herein filed a representation objecting to the appointment of 1st respondent-writ petitioner on the ground that she is not a resident of Badapuram Village, but is a resident of Jagannadhapuram Village of Tarlapadu Mandal.  
Further the appellant moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 7093 of 2009 alleging inaction on the part of the official respondents in considering the representation filed by her and by order dated 6.4.2009, this Court directed the 1st respondent therein, i.e.,  the District Collector/Committee Chairman, Prakasam District at Ongole to dispose of the said representation of the appellant after issuing notice and after enquiring into the nativity and eligibility of the 1strespondent-writ petitioner.  
It further appears that the Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency (D.W.C.D.A.), Ongole issued notices, considered the explanation of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and ordered removal of the                1st respondent-writ petitioner on the ground that she was found residing at Jagannadhapuram Village at the time of notification and interview and since she is not a resident of Badapuram Village, she was removed from the post of Anganwadi worker.  Simultaneously, the appellant was appointed in the said post on 12.1.2010.  
Questioning the said order of removal, the 1strespondent-writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 601 of 2010, which has since been allowed by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that when the appointing authority is the Committee, the matter of removal must necessarily go before the very authority.  The said order of the learned Single Judge is questioned in this appeal.
        It is not in dispute that the appointment of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was in pursuance of the decision of the Committee constituted as per G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above.  In addition to that, a circular was issued by the Government as early as on 9.2.1995 to the effect that the appointment, removal, acceptance of resignation as well as the transfers of Anganwadi workers must be dealt with by the Committee referred to above.
 The learned Government Pleader submitted that the said G.O. and the Committee thereunder have since been revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012.
However, the fact that a Committee is constituted for the purpose of appointment, removal, transfers etc., of the Anganwadi workers is not disputed even under the revised G.O. referred to above.  In that view of the matter, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that when the appointment of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was made by the Committee, the order of removal must also be considered by the said Committee and consequently, the removal order passed by the Project Director, under the impugned proceedings referred to above, was rightly held to be unsustainable on that aspect and in that view of the matter, the impugned order does not call for interference in this appeal. 
        Learned counsel for the appellant, however submits that there is unimpeachable evidence to show that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is not the resident of Badapuram Village and at the time of notification and interview, she was a resident of Jagannadhapuram Village.  It is also stated that after the writ petition was allowed under the impugned order, the appellant was removed and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was again reinstated and continued as Anganwadi worker.
Therefore, since the issue of eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner still remains to be decided by the competent authority, without interfering with the order impugned, we dispose of the writ appeal by further directing the District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, the 2nd respondent herein, to place the representation of the appellant and the issue with regard to eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner before the Committee as constituted under G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above, and as duly revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012 to enable the said Committee to consider the eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner  to hold the said post of Anganwadi worker of Badapuram Village in accordance with law.  
We hope and trust that the said Committee will follow principles of natural justice and will give notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  No costs.

N.V. RAMANA, ACJ



VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
15th March, 2013
pnb

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.