APHC010015272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1140/2025 Between:

1. G OBULAMMA, W/O PRASAD , ANGANWADI HELPER, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 13-73, NEELAKANTAPURAM MADAKASIRA VILLAGE, MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE (ICDS DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI.

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. T HE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJEET, ANANTAPUR DISTRIET, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. T HE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJEET OFFIEER, (ICDS DEPARTMENT), MADAKASIRA (SATYASAI DISTRICT) PROJECT, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...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 to issue writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI and call for the records pertaining to the termination progs.No 6/A/2025/ICDS/ dated 12-12-2024 of the 4th respondent and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to function as mini Anganwadi worker of Anganwadi center situated at K Palam village Madakasira mandal Sathya sai District and as such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SRINIVASULA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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

:: ORDER ::

The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Progs.No.6/A/2024/ICDS/dated 12.12.2024 (Ex.P1), whereby terminating the petitioner as Mini Anganwadi Worker, K. Palyam Village, Madakasira, Sri Sathya Sai District, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri V. Srinivasula Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare appeared for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a show-cause vide memo/A/ICDS.2024-25, dated 02.10.2024 (Ex.P11) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 02.10.2024. Without considering the explanation, the order of termination impugned was issued.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that upon considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after getting approval from the District Selection Committee, the impugned order was issued.

5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s appointment as Mini Anganwadi Worker at K. Palyam Village, Madakasira, Sri Sathya Sai District; issuance of a show-cause memo dated 02.10.2024 and explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.10.2024. In the proceedings impugned, the 8^th reference is the show-cause memo and the 9^th reference is the explanation. However, in the proceedings impugned, nothing was discussed either regarding the contents of the show- cause memo or the explanation submitted by the petitioner. No reasons were also assigned. It is a settled principle of law that reasons and heart and soul of every order.

6. In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India¹, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the judgment in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co.

of India Limited case, it is held as follows:

“It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrativ