Smt. Nallaboina Umadevi, Kadapa District v. Prl. Secretary, School Education Dept., Hyderabad And 5 Others

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI W.P.No.40591 OF 2015

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not acting upon the representations dated 14.09.2015, 28.09.2015, 29.09.2015 & 27.04.2015 submitted by the petitioner for conducting detailed enquiry in respect of the appointment and continuation of respondent No.6 as Anganwadi Teacher, Denepalli Village, Muddanur Mandal, Kadapa District, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct respondents 2 and 3 to conduct detailed enquiry in respect of the appointment and continuation of the 6th respondent as Anganwadi Teacher.

Heard Sri Pavani Siva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women and Child Welfare.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner was un-successful, the 6th respondent was appointed as Anganwadi Teacher way back in 2002. Learned counsel further submits that during the year 2013, 2014 and 2015, some relevant information has been given to the petitioner to the effect that though the 6th respondent is

not eligible for appointment as Anganwadi Teacher, she is being continued, contrary to the rules, hence, the petitioner submitted representations on 14.09.2015, 28.09.2015, 29.09.2015, 27.04.2015 and 17.08.2009 to conduct detailed enquiry and remove the 6th respondent as Anganwadi Teacher. Learned counsel further submits that though respondents 2 and 3 conducted enquiry, no action has been taken against the 6th respondent.

Learned Government Pleader contends that since the petitioner is an un-successful candidate, she has been making such representations and if there is any truth in the said allegations, definitely the official respondents would conduct enquiry and take action against the 6th respondent. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that as the petitioner is the un-successful candidate, she has been submitting representations against the 6th respondent that too after lapse of 13 years from appointment of the 6th respondent. There are no merits in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is needless to say if there is any truth in the allegations levelled against the 6th respondent, it is always open for the official respondents to initiate action against the 6th

respondent, as per the rules, after following due process of law. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI 20th April, 2018 rkk