APHC010484252011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33086/2011 Between:

Smt. T. Chinnimmi ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector Executive Magistrate ...RESPONDENT(S)

and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M MURALI LINCOLN(STANDING COUNSEL FOR ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY)

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

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

The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated

02.12.2011, whereby the 3^rd respondent issued orders for the appointment of 4^th respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4^th respondent was issued the impugned proceedings without conducting any enquiry. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent issued a notification on 10.12.2012 for filling up the post of Anganwadi worker at Miryampalli Village, Prakasham District. The 4^th respondent and one Kommu Ranamma attended the interview and were selected. However, before joining the duty, Kommu Ranamma submitted her resignation and the 4^th respondent was the only other candidate who applied in pursuance of the notification. On account of the resignation of the selected candidate, the 3^rd respondent issued a fresh notification dated 31.10.2011. The petitioner also submitted an application in response to the notification. The 4^th respondent was appointed without calling the petitioner or any other applicants for an interview. The appointment of the 4^th respondent without, conducting any interview is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that even before the respondents processed the applications received in pursuant of the 2^nd respondent, the 4^th respondent filled W.P.No.25515 of 2011, dated 12.09.2011, which directed the selection committee to consider the case of the petitioner. As the respondents could not implement the order in time, the 4^th respondent filed C.C.No.1524 of 2011. During pendency of the contempt case, the 4^th respondent was issued proceedings dated 12.10.2011, implementing the orders passed by this Court. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the second notification was cancelled in pursuance of the selection of the 4^th respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have only implemented the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.25515 of 2011 and that the second notification issued on

31.10.2011 was cancelled.

4. Recording the submissions of both learned counsel, the appointment orders issued in favor of the 4^th respondent are evidently in accordance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.25515 of 2011. That apart, the 4^th respondent is admittedly the only other candidate who applied in response to the notification dated 15.04.2011, as the selected candidate had submitted her resignation. Therefore, the appointment of the 4^th respondent to fill up the post of Anganwadi worker cannot be a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, when the respondents have cancelled the notification.

5. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 28.01.2025

NKA

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.33086 of 2011 Date: 28.01.2025 NKA