Y. Shobha Rani v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * * WRIT PETITION No.76 of 2010 Between:

Y.Shobha Rani ....Petitioner and The District Collector, Dist. Wing of Women & Child Development Agency, Nalgonda District, At Nalgonda, And others.

....Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 02.03.2016 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO :

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : No Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to : No see the fair copy of the Judgment?

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.76 of 2010 ORDER:

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganvadi worker in the year 1998 vide proceedings dated 08.10.1998 in the Anganvadi Centre No.2 of Vallala Village, Shaligowraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. Due to ill health, she could not attend to her duties and for the said period she was not paid the salary. It is also her case that when the Aayah was on leave from 08.09.2009 to 21.09.2009, she attended the duties. In respect of the period she did not attend the duties, she sent a leave

letter. She also submits that a representation to the District Collector was also sent on 11.12.2009 with regard to the non-payment of the salary, but no action was taken on the said representation. While so, on 01.01.2010, she came to know that a notice was affixed on the notice board to fill up the vacant posts of Anganwadi Workers in Gurajala, Bayravunibanda and Vallala Villages. She states that the said action was taken only to deprive her of her post. She, accordingly, challenged the issuance of notification on 29.12.2009.

This Court, by order dated 06.01.2010, granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notification dated 29.12.2009. But, however, liberty was given to the respondents to go ahead with the selection process, but it was directed that the selection shall not be finalized. Though no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, on the basis of the written instructions of the Project Director (FAC), the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner was continued in service and her request to treat her absence as E.O.L was also favourably considered. In view of the same, the recruitment notification was stalled.

Since the recruitment itself is stalled, and the representation of the petitioner was favourably considered treating her absence as E.O.L., no further orders are necessary in the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed recording the statement of the learned Government Pleader.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 02.03.2016 vs