High Court · 2025

4 5. Goli Sri Latha Housewife R/o Ammula Chaitra, Wo Shyam Aged about 24 years, Occ No.5-2- l92, Indiranagar, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District @ H. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction, or any other appropriate Order one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents non appointing the Petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District and appointing the Respondent No.5 without verifying the certificates whereas the original name of the Respondent No.S is Goli Sri Latha and job has been given in the name of Ammula Chaitra for Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District is illegal, arbitrary, principles of natural justice besides in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to reconsider the selection process of the :*:).#-7,/ Respondent No.5 ancl remove her from the post of Anganwadi Teacher Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.1 to 4 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 1110712019 and 3111212019 and suspend the appointment of Respondent No-5 for the post of Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally [\/andal, Jagityal District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.A.K.MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.1&2: AGP FOR WOMEN DEV & CHILD WELFARE ,) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: AGP FOR IRRIGATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI NIVARTHI MURTHYUNJAYA SASTRY The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.2932 ot 2O2l ORDER: Heard Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counse! appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, appearing on behatf of respondent Nos'1 and 2, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Irr'9ation, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos'3 and 4 and Sri Nivarthi Murthyunjaya Sastry, !earned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5' 2- The oetitioner aDDro ached the Court seekin o Dra Ver as u nder: "...to issue Writ, Order or Direction, or any other appropriate Order one in the nature of a WRIT OF 4nNOAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents for non-appoiniing the Petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District and appointing the Respondent No.5 without verifying the certificates whereas the original name of the Respondent No' 5 is Goli Sri Latha and job has been given in the name of Ammula Chaitra for Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District is illegal, arbitrary, principles of natural justice besides in violition of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to reconsider the selection process of the Respondent No.5 and remove her from the post of Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District and Pass..." . .l ._ -.,-.:-.r-- - :r:': 2 SN, J wP 2932 2021 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner belongs to SC Community and applied for Anqanwadi Teacher, but the petitioner was not selected. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 selected th€ respondent No.5 for the post of Anganwadi Teacher without verifying the certificates, whereas the petitioner stood 2nd position in the selection list. Further, the Respondent No.5 tampered the certificates and created a Caste Certificate from the Tahsildar, lYetpally, dated 28.04.2018. Aggrieved by the ':he petitioner submitted a representation dated same, lLOf .20L9 to the RDO and another representation dated 37.72.2019 to the Superintendent of police to reject the Sth respondent's application and select the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Teacher. Aggrieved thereby. the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD, 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th resD ondent and the relevant oortion of para Nos.4 and 5 are extracted here u nder: "4. In reply to averments made at paras 3 to 6 of the petitioner's affidavit, it is submitted that the Respondent No.5 has filed application through online showing her name as "Ammula Chaithra w/o Shyam,, r/o Metpelli town. The name of the respondent No.5 according J SN, J \,\tP )912 2021 to her SSC Memo (No.LL 0585217) issued from ZPHS, SRSP, Pochampad, Balkonda, Nizambad dist., and Community Certificate dated 25.3.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Metpelli mandal is recorded as Goli Srilatha D/o Chinna Rajanna, the Certificate bearing No.Cl46/2OtB dated 28.4.2018 issued by the Tahsildar, Metpelli mandal and the Certifrcate of Marriage issued by the Sub-Registrar, Metpelli mention that the Respondent No.5 ie., Ammula Chaithra w/o Ammula Shyam is also known as Goll Srilatha D/o Chinna Rajanna @ Ammula Chaithra i.e. both names relate to one person. It is submitted that the Selection Committee has verified the Certificates of Respondent No.5 observed her capabilities and skills, which are found better than that of the petitioner, hence, the Respondent No.5 was selected on merit basis. It is submitted that the final Eligibility list was displayed by the Respondent No.4 on the notice board of Municipal OFfrce, Metpally town and all records pertaining to the said eligible candidates were sent to the Dist. Welfare Officer, Jagtial for onward transmission and perusal of the Dist. Collector, Jagtial. It is submitted that the candidature of Respondent No.5 can be identified on her face with reference to her photograph affixed on the SSC Memo and it is not the case that Ammula Chaithra w/o Shyam and Goli Srilatha D/o Chinna Rajanna are two different persons and the Respondent No.5 (Ammula Chaithra w/o Shyam) has used the SSC Certificate of Goli Srilatha for obtaining job of Anganwadi Teacher in Fraudulent manner. it is revealed in the enquiry that the Respondent No.5 was known as Goli Srilatha before her marriage and her name was changed as Ammula Chaithra 4 SN. J wP 29.12 202 t after nrarriage based on her Horoscope and advice or otherwise.

5. In reply to averments made at Paras 7 & B, it is submitted that as mentioned above, the candidate of petitioner is not found suitable and better than that of respondent No.5, as such, she was not considered for the post of Anganwadi Teacher, Metpelli-1. The petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court with false claim and baseless allegations and also with unclean hands. There is no genuinely in the representatlons and affidavit filed by the writ p€titioner. Hence, the re p rese ntation:i filed by the petitioner on 11.01 .20L9 & 31.12.2019 weTe not conside red ".

5. The le,arned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing re iance on Memo vide No.B/12.96/2020, dated

19.09.2020 issued by the Assistant Public Information Officer, Metpalli, contends that when the information was sought for requesting to provide inFormation pertaining to the name of the Officer, who issued the certificate of Smt. Ammula Chaithra, W/o. Ammula Shyam, R/o. H.No.5-2-192, t'4etpalli Village, Mandal of Jagtial District is also known as Goli Srilatha, D/o. Chinna Rajanna @ Ammula Chaithra vide No.C/4612018, dated

28.04.2078 It was informed that the said file C/46/2020 was not available in the office records. Learned counsel appearing on I I i I 5 SN, J wP 2932 2021 behalf of the petitioner further submits that in view of the fact that the very file was not available pertaining to the 5th respondent very appointment of 5rh respondent as Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District 'is vitiated and therefore, enquiry should be ordered into the matter pertaining to the certificates furnished by the respondent No.5 in securing the job as Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagltyal District I and to restrain the selection process of the 5th respondent and to remove the 5th respondent from the post of Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District.

6. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent on behalf of Child Development Proiect Officer, Metpally, Jagtial District clearly indicates at para No.6 that the candidature of the petitioner was not found suitable better than that of respondent No.5 and hence, the petitioner was not considered for the post of Anganwadi Teacher, Metpally Mandal, Jagityal District. This Court opines that for issuance of a writ of mandamus. \ \ the petitioner should have an existing legal right in the present case petitioner has not been found suitable as per merit than I that of respondent No.5 and therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. 6 SN. J \\/P 29t2 202 t tn vl ew of

7. This Court ODines that rhes necific aver ents ma de in the counter affidavit at oara No.4 that the resoon d nt No.S was selected on merit basis and further that the final eligibility list was displayed by the respondent No.4 on the notice board of Municipal Office, Metpally town and all records pertaining to the said eligible candidates were sent to the District Welfare officer, Jagtial and a detailed enquiry was :onducted and it was revealed that the respondent No.5 was kncwn as Goli Srilatha before her marriage and her name was changed as Ammula Chaithra after marriage based on her horoscope and advice and hence, there are no merits in the present writ [reLition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as the same is devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ petition shall also stand closed. SD/- S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO TANT REGISTRAR A //TRUE COPY// SEGTION OF FICER To,

1. One CC to SRI IU.A K.MUKHEED, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI NIVARTHI MURTHYUNJAYA SASTRY' Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR WOMEN DEV q CHILD WELFARE' High Court for the - 4. Two CCs to GF' FOR IRRIGATION' High Court for the State of Telangana at Siaie of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies; BSR .n Rqe na - ,/ I , CC TODAY ( 4 ) , .,1 -( t'e 5TA}F 7 n * 19 APfl 2sl5 k r)ESpr-.t' 1,:.c HIGH COURT DATED:1010312025 ORDER WP.No.2932 of 2021 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @q,' W i I I i i I I i I I I i I I I I