SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 971

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HARINATH.N
B.Pushpalatha W/o.G.Sudhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 19568/2013



APHC010390602013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19568/2013 Between:

1.B.PUSHPALATHA, W/O.G.SUDHAKAR REDDY, R/O.YERRASANIVARIPALLI(V), TALUPULA(M), ANANTAPUR DIST.

...PETITIONER AND

1.THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT & CHILD WELFARE (ICDS)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANWADI WORKERS & ANGANWADI HELPERS, ANANTAPUR DIST.

3.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ANANTAPUR DIST.

4.THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT KADIRI THOORPU ANANTAPUR DIST.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Worker in ICDS Project Kadiri Thoorpu, Yerrasanivaripalli(V),Talupula(M), Anantapur Dist., as bad, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 15, dt. 04.04.2012 and also offends Arts. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of principles of natural justice IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 23966 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Worker in ICDS Project Kadiri Thoorpu, Yerrasanivaripalli(V),Talupula(M), Anantapur Dist., as per G.O.Ms. No. 15, dt. 04.04.2012 pending disposal of the main writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 29674 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead Smt. A.Arunamma, W/o. G.Sudhakar as 5th respondent in writ petition as well as in WPMP Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.M VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV, CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19568/2013

ORDER:

1. The petitioner is challenging the selection process for the post of Anganvadi worker.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed 10th class and also worked as instructor of ECE Centre. It is stated that the affidavit that the selection committee has considered a candidate who has produced fake experience certificate as instructor of ECE Center and that the selected candidate has secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the 10th class examination. The petitioner claims that the selection procedure adopted by the respondents is faulty and requires reconsideration.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the selection committee has selected one Smt.B.Arunamma as Anganvadi worker and the primary contention of the petitioner is that the experience certificate produced by Smt.B.Arunamma is fake certificate. The respondent authorities got verified the said certificate and that the Headmistress of the concerned center has certified that the certificate submitted by the selected candidate was genuine. It is submitted that the selection committee has considered various aspects and awarded highest marks to the candidate selected. It is also submitted that the selection process is transparent and Officers of the District form part of the selection committee. The petitioner has also not arrayed the candidate who was selected as party respondent in the writ petition. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Recording the same, the writ petition is closed.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top