← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/15685/2002dismissed

Smt. P Venkata Ramalaxmi Devi v. The Joint Collector

2018-11-13Abhinand Kumar Shavili2 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.15685 of 2002 ORDER :

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that this writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker ignoring the case of the petitioner. It is further contended that respondent No.4 was appointed pursuant to the selection procedure as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 26.08.1991, whereas, new procedure is prescribed vide G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 28.07.1998 by supersession of earlier G.O. i.e. G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 26.08.1991. Counsel for petitioner further contended that respondent No.4 was appointed as Anganwadi worker after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 28.07.1998, therefore, the appointment of respondent No.4 is illegal as it is contrary to the said G.O. 2.

The learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare submits that there was an amendment to G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 28.07.1998 vide G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 29.12.1998, wherein, it was stated that Anganwadi workers and Helpers shall be continued to be appointed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.132, dated 26.08.1991, as such, respondent No.4 was rightly appointed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 29.12.1998.

AKS, J W.P.No.15685 of 2002 3.

Sri S.Gangadhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has contended that no illegality has been committed by the official respondents in appointing respondent No.4 as Anganwadi worker and such appointment is made after following due procedure. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

4.

This Court, having considered the rival contentions of the parties, is of the considered view that the respondents have rightly appointed respondent No.4 by following the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.79, dated 29.12.1998.

5.

In view of above, there are no merits in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 13th November, 2018 ajr