High Court · 2025

petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia playls thBt in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court- may be ;i;;;;'i"-ltant a direciion more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring tne aliion of the chitd Development Project officer,.(lcDS) fro;""t, Srryrpet N"atgonja Di.t'i"t it illegal, arbitrary' contrary to the rules and Igli".i the'law as suih io oir""t the 1"i respondent Project Officer.and other Llpono"nt. who are the selection committee members particularly tho District C-o-f'f ,="toi Nalgonda to take action and to appoint the applicant in- that post aq n.gr"*;di *oit LA. NO:1 oF 2017(WPMP. N O: 36251 oF 20171 Gunamtanda village immediately in the interest of juslice. "r, Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporiot gre petition, ir'JHigr, court may be pleased.to grant an interim direction to .onrio"i itre petitione/s representation dated 11.7 .2017. immediately pending disposal of the above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K PRADEEP REDDY 'f Counsel for the Re s;pondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILI) Wt:LFARE The Court madr:. the, following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.29124 OF 2OL7 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1't respondent to appoint her as Anganwadi Worker in Gurramtanda Village immediately in the said vacant post and to continue her in service'

2. Heard Sri K. Pradecp Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and child welfare. Perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent District Collector, being the Selection Board Chairman and appointing authority, called for applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gurram Tanda Village through the 1st respondent Child Development Project Offlrcer, Pursuant to G.O.Rt.No-4O2 l2OO5 of the Women Welfare and Child Development Department and permission from the District Anganwadi Workers ) Selectiorr r.lorrrmittee, Nalgonda, applications r"ere inl'ited, and the pctiti,tner submitted her applicaticn

4. It is,.:iso stated that based on th: iaterwiew conduct r:r: 1 r',, the 1"t respondent Chilcl Lterre lopment Officer, tLe cetitioner was appointed on 03.i0 2006 by order No 1':l() and joined duty on 03.l 1 .2Ol)6. She continue d in service for 15 months and v,,a s paid salary from Nor',::r ber 2006 to May 2OO7. Thr p:titioner contend:; h: I she was selected through d-re rro<:ess and was eve -i s,:r.t lor training at VijayawadeL. r'\ccording to her, the arpcintment is regular, valid, arc1 i'ct:crding to mles.

5. It is irrrther stated that based on :r cr,trp,lain1 by some agllric r'rd persons of herThanda, thc 1' rc.spondent ordered 1r (r r quiry regarding the petitione r's cdt cational qualiflczrti,rr The MEO, Suryapet allegedl'y qir\/c a vague report sla itr: that Chaitanya Bharathi High ScILool was not presel'.1..1, lunctioning but did not conduct i r proper enquiry w'rr:'lre r it was in existence at th,: rt 1ev;rnt time J of the petitioner's education. The petitioner asserts that the Transfer Certihcate she submitted is genuine and that her dismissal without proper enquiry is illegal and arbitrary. 6. The petitioner further submits that she hled W'P' No.16027 df 2OOg before this Court challenging her termination without notice. An interim status quo order was granted on 05.08.2009. However, due to assurances given by the 1"t respondent that she would be reappointed, she did not pursue the Writ Petition actively' leading to its dismissal for non prosecution on

21..O9.2013. 7. The petitioner submits that the post remains vacant, and despite repeated representations, she was neither reappointed nor given any communication by the respondents. Thus, she hled the present Writ Fetition'

8. A Counter Aflidavit was filed by the l=t respondent denying all allegations. It is stated that after proper enquiry by the Tahsildar, Chivvemla and the RDO' 4 Suryapr:t i was found that the Tran sI-e - C ertilicate submitt:cl lrr the petitioner was fake. Thr: arimission number rlitl not tally with the school records, and ti-re Head Mlst,.r' certified that the petitioner had no stuclied in their sr h tc,l. Consequently, alter followtrg rluc process, the petiticn,rr was terminated from selice on 2l 04.2OO7 vide ordr:r. No A/ 195l2OOZ. 9. Thr: r.e:spondents submit that duringl thc ltendency of W.P. 1,1r,. lrj027 of 2OO9, the post was kerpt vac ut, and subsequ,:rrtlr . the writ petition was dismiss,_.d br non_ prosecutio,r, It is further stated that on O,/.O.r.2(23, one D. Jyothi ;:L; appointed as In charge Anganu.acli Worker for the sr,,irl post vide proc.No. 12 I Al2C23 to ensure smooth l-_u.r:t i,rr-ring of the Anganwadi Centre. 1O. It is c,)ntended that the petitione,r ;up pressed materiai ar:r.s and filed the present writ petition brrsed on a represe nriLtitn dated Ll.OZ.201T . Since W.l).N <,.16022 of 2OO9 aerl W_p.No.291.24 of 2Ol7 co.uenr-tg similar grounds rv'crc rlismissed, and since no liberty,"ras ryanted H TE \ \ 5 to file a fresh wrlt petition' the present writ petition is not maintainable. Moreover' the respondents have submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim salary for the period after her termination and that her case is devoid of merits ' a

11. Having heard the submissions and on Pemsal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was detailed enqulry which terminated after conducting established that she had submitted a fake certificate' The petitioner, despite having earlier filed W'P'No't6O27 of 2OOq challenging her termination' allowed it to be dismissed for non-prosecution and subsequently filed W.P.No.29 1 24 of 2017 without disclosing the material facts of her Previous dismissal' |2.Itisasettled.principleoflawthatsuppressionof material facts disentitles a petitioner from relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' Further' no llberty was granted by this Court while dismissing W.P.No. 16027 of 2OO9 to file a fresh writ petition' 6 Thereforr:. tlt: present writ petition, being barred and not maintaina.tl:, Iiable to be dismissed.

13. AcctlC rrgly, the Writ petition is dlsmisse d, llo order as to cos ts \liscellaneous petitions, if any perrclrrrg, shall also stan I ,: ic sred SD/-I(.BI-IAVANI SWAMY ASSISTAI\.IT REGISTRAR To, '1. One CC to S Fl K PRADEEP REDDy Advocate [OpUC] SE(::TION OFFIcER //TRUE COPY// 2 r) KKS BS Two CCs tr. : P FOR WOIVEN DEV CHILD WELFARE .lligh Court for the State of -telan,) rna. [OUT] Two CD Sopie s w/ HIGH COUIR'T DATED:17 ttt32025 ORDER WP.No.2912at of 2017 ,,: ' l r li ST Arc t_\ \,. ! ii;:)i,; 2 \i2.\v\.r\\. 5 Jur{ 2l[5 f' t) rlr,rtr:r' -.- _ :::-/ _/ _,,. DISMISSING I'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CC)STS @"9" /"fi\ ,1 b 'Ib'