ORDER:

(Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic)

1. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 16.07.2018 seeking promotion as Anganwadi Worker vide endorsement No.2018/F2 dated 20.07.2018, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the Memos dated 23.12.1998, 03.12.2010 and 05.01.2012 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as also violative of the law declared by this Court in W.P.No.31374 of 2015 and batch dated 16.11.2015.

2. The petitioner is working as Anganwadi Helper at Gotcheri Village, Guda Panchayat, Hukumpeta Project, Hukumpeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pursuant to the proceedings dated 04.11.2015 issued by the 4th respondent. As a vacancy arose in respect of the post of Anganwadi Worker in the same center in the month of June, 2017, the petitioner has been discharging both the duties of Anganwadi Worker as well as Anganwadi Helper. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she is entitled for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the existing vacancy, as she is fully qualified and discharging the functions and also belongs to the same Anganwadi Center and of the same Village. Without considering the various Memos issued by the competent authority, the case of the petitioner was rejected.

3. Smt. B. Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contends that the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner is wholly unsustainable and the same is contrary to the Memos issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 governing the field of appointments and promotions in respect of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. She also contends that the issue with regard to the aspect of promotion of Anganwadi Helper to the post of Anganwadi Worker fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.31374 of 2015 and batch and the same were allowed by an order dated 16.11.2015. While drawing the attention of this Court to the Memos dated 23.12.1998, 03.12.2010 and 05.01.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner, in view of the said Memos as also in view of the expression of the learned Judge in the above referred batch of writ petitions, deserves to be considered. She also submits that the petitioner has been discharging the functions of Anganwadi Helper and also Anganwadi Worker for the last three years and in such circumstances, the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker is not just or tenable.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that due to filing of a complaint by one Smt. S. Subbalakshmi before the Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Commission (APHRC) and also a writ petition in W.P.No.42327 of 2018, the case of the petitioner could not be considered. He also submits that the petitioner’s case would be considered, after receipt of appropriate orders in the writ petition instituted by said Smt. S. Subbalakshmi.

5. This Court has considered the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record.

6. It is not in dispute that there is a vacancy of Anganwadi Worker in Hukumpeta Project Center and the petitioner has been discharging the functions of Anganwadi Helper as also Anganwadi Worker. In one of the Memos dated 23.12.1998 issued by the 1st respondent, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance, the relevant portion provides thus:

“5. Appointment of Anganwadi Helpers as Anganwadi Workers:

The CDPOs are directed to see that performance (sic. preference) is given to the eligible Anganwadi Helpers in selection of Anganwadi Workers, if the CDPO satisfies the requirement of Anganwadi Worker.

The Project Directors are directed