Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Nuka Padma Kumari – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 5128 & 15701 of 2020 and 17923 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2023
ANGWADI WORKERS - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - JURISDICTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - SERVICE LAW JURISPRUDENCE - AP STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1996 - G.O.MS.NO.18, DEPARTMENT FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN (PROG.) DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS, DATED 15.05.2015 - WRIT PETITION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION : Termination of Anganwadi Workers without jurisdiction, contrary to the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.05.2015, and without following the principles of natural justice and service law jurisprudence is illegal and arbitrary. The impugned proceedings are set aside, and the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated into service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Anganwadi Workers, were terminated from service by the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, and the District Collector without following due process and without jurisdiction. The petitioners challenged the termination proceedings through writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the termination proceedings were issued without jurisdiction, as the Appointing Authority for the petitioners was the District Selection Committee, and not the Child Development Project Officer or the District Collector. The Court also held that the principles of natural justice were not followed, as the petitioners were not given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations made against them.
Issues: 1. Whether the termination proceedings were issued without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.05.2015, which provide that the District Selection Committee is the Appointing Authority for Anganwadi Workers. The Court held that the termination proceedings were issued by the Child Development Project Officer and the District Collector, who were not the Appointing Authority, and therefore, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. 2. The Court relied on the principles of natural justice, which require that a person should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves against allegations made against them. The Court held that the petitioners were not given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, as they were not provided with a show cause notice or an opportunity to be heard before the termination proceedings were issued.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned termination proceedings. The petitioners were entitled to be reinstated into service within two months from the date of receipt of the Court's order. The Court also directed the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioners by following due process of law as contemplated under the Rules, 1996 and G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.05.2015.
ORDER :
Since the issue to be resolved in these three writ petitions is the same, I deem it appropriate to dispose of them by this common order.
2. Heard Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.5128 of 2020 and 17923 of 2021, Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.15701, and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for the official respondents in all the writ petitions.
3. For convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the facts in W.P.No.5128 of 2020 are considered.
In a nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that she passed 10th class in the year 1999 and later, passed graduation in the year 2005. She applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker to the respondent authorities and the selection committee of the respondent authorities considered her application and appointed her as an Anganwadi Worker on 15.08.2012 to Matalabupeta Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District, and since then she has been discharging her duties as such without any complaint or remarks. While so, the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Sarubujji Mandal, Srikakulam District, 5th respondent herein, issued proceedings dated 10.02.2020 terminating the petitioner from the services of the Anganwadi Worker. The same is under challenge in W.P.No.5128 of 2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, and the District Collector issued the impugned proceedings without jurisdiction and contrary to the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.18, Department for Women, Children (Prog.) Disabled and Senior Citizens, dated 15.05.2015. Under G.O.Ms.No.18, the Committees for the selection of recruitment of Angawadi Workers or Anganwadi Helpers in all Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Project Areas as well as in ITDA project Areas were reconstituted. As per Rule 7 of the said G.O., in respect of ICDS project Areas, the District Collector/Chairperson of DW & CDA will be the Chairperson, and RDO concerned, DM & HO/Additional DM & HO, CDPO concerned and Project Director will be the Members of the Committee, and in respect of ITDA Project Areas, the ITDA Project Officer/Chair person of DW & CDA will be the Chairperson, and RDO concerned, DM & HO/Additional DM & HO, CDPO concerned and Project Officer will be the Members of the Committee. The subject matter of the writ petitions relates to ICDS Projects. As such, for the Committee for selecting Anganwadi Workers/Helpers in respect of areas of ICDS Projects, the District Collector is the Chairperson and four others as stated supra are the Members. The learned counsels would submit that as per the Service Law Jurisprudence, no employee be terminated not below the rank of Appointing Authority/Selection Committee. In the present cases, the Appointing Authority is the District Selection Committee as stated above, but the impugned proceedings were issued by the Chairperson and one of the Members of the Committee i.e., the Child Development Project Officer, without having proper jurisdiction, in the absence of any such resolution by the Selection Committee for such termination/removal.
Termination of Anganwadi Workers must be done by the Appointing Authority, and the principles of natural justice must be followed.
Government servant appointed to be in-charge of current duties of an office cannot exercise any substantive powers of office.
The court upheld the termination of an Anganwadi Worker based on valid grounds, emphasizing the importance of adherence to government guidelines and the unsuitability of disputed facts for writ juris....
It is prevailing law at that time of issuance of advertisement that will govern and as per same, requirement was to be a local woman residing in locality.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
