P.ANJULAMMA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner dtd. 16/7/2018 seeking promotion as Anganwadi Worker vide endorsement No.2018/F2 dtd. 20/7/2018, 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 dtd. 23/12/1998, 3/12/2010 and 5/1/2012 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 dtd. 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 dtd. 4/11/2015 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 dtd. 16/11/2015. While drawing the attention of this Court to the Memos dtd. 23/12/1998, 3/12/2010 and 5/1/2012, 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.