Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
S. Jareena, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 19 March, 2021
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.19459 of 2019
ORDER :
The petitioner was working as Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi
Centre No.2 of Peravali Village, Maddikera Mandal, Kurnool District.
As the post of Anganwadi Worker had fallen vacant in this centre, the
petitioner was expecting to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker at the
said centre. However, the 5th respondent, who was working as
Anganwadi Worker in centre No.6 of the same village, was appointed
as Anganwadi Worker in the centre No.2 dashing the expectations of
the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said appointment, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
2. Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the said appointment is in violation of Memo No.5771/K3/2006,
dated 05.01.2012, as well as the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs.
Punra Devi, dated 24.03.2015 in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.34795 and
34796 of 2014. In that case, the Director, Department of Social
Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh had issued a
communication, dated 10.05.2012 to all the Children Development
Project Officers of the State setting down guidelines for appointment
to the post of Anganwadi Worker. In those guidelines, it was stated
that wherever there is a vacancy of Anganwadi Worker in any
Angadawadi centre, the Anganwadi Helper working in the same centre
can be considered on priority basis for appointment to the post of
Anganwadi Worker. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
an Anganwadi Helper working in another centre was permitted to
apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker in another centre in the same
village and appointed. This action was struck down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on the ground that the guidelines issued on
10.05.2012 permitted priority only to the Anganwadi Helper working
in the same Anganwadi Centre.
3. Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, would also rely upon the eligibility guidelines
set out in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that
the minimum qualification for a Anganwadi Worker should be 10+2
education.
4. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, submits that the 5th respondent, who was a
Anganwadi Helper in another centre within the same village would not
be eligible to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker and it is
only for petitioner who should have been considered.
5. The learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare
would point out that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
on the basis of the instructions, dated 10.05.2012, while in the
present case, the instructions, dated 05.01.2012, issued in Andhra
Pradesh stipulate that any Anganwadi Helper working in the same
village would be entitled to be considered for being appointed as an
Anganwadi Worker. It was pointed out that on account of this
difference between the instructions in Himachal Pradesh, dated
10.05.2012 and the instructions, dated 05.01.2012, the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not be applicable to the peculiar
facts of this case.
6. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the
qualifications noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were on the basis
of the qualifications stipulated in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He
would submit that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 15.05.2015, the
education qualification of Anganwadi Worker in the State of Andhra
Pradesh is only 10th class or equivalent and as such the contention
that an Anganwadi Worker should have a minimum educational
qualification of 10+2 would not be applicable.
7. Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the memo, dated 05.01.2012 states that qualified
Anganwadi Helper is not eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi
Worker, even if, she is willing to work anywhere in the concerned
town and as such the instructions cannot be taken to mean that an
Anganwadi Helper in one village is identified to be appointed as
Anganwadi Worker in one other centre in the same village.
8. Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, relying upon the last line in paragraph No.11
of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contends that the
requirement to feeder area is unchanged and as such the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court would continue to apply to the facts of this
case.
Consideration of the Court
The relevant part of the instructions, dated 05.01.2012 issued
by the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare, State of
Andhra Pradesh reads as:
"The qualified AWH is not eligible to be appointed
as AWW even if she is willing to work anywhere in the
concerned town."
9. The opening paragraph of this memo states that the Anganwadi
Worker and Anganwadi Helper must be selected from the same village
where the Anganwadi centre is located. This would mean that as far
as villagers are concerned, any Anganwadi Helper working in any
centre situated within the same village would be considered for the
post of Anganwadi Worker in any centre within the said village. The
reference to a town would not be relevant to the present case. A
perusal of G.O.Ms.No.18 would show that the educational qualification
is only that of 10th class, in such circumstances, there are no merits in
the writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 19.03.2021
SPP
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.19459 of 2019
Date : 19.03.2021
SPP
