WP/5857/2024 of K. Eeramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 2 February 2026

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 5th respondent vide Progs No 01/DAWW/AWH Estt/2022 dated 0208 2023 in terminating the petitioner from her services as Mini Anganwadi Worker Buggathanda Village is illegal arbitrary violation of Art 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India colorable exercise of power and against principles of natural justice and to quash or set aside the same and to issue a consequential direction to the 5th respondent to continue the petitioner as Mini Anganwadi Worker Buggathanda Village Pattikonda Manal Kurnool District and to pass…”

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker, Buggathanda Village, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District, vide proceedings by the 5th respondent dated 04.06.2011. The petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 05.12.2010 and accordingly she was selected and appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker and continued to work till 02.08.2023.

3. Based on certain complaints against the petitioner, the respondents issued a show cause notice on 03.02.2023 with regard to obtaining employment by placing a forged/fake SSC certificate. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 08.02.2023. But, surprisingly, without considering the same and without conducting any enquiry, and even without supplying copies of documents to the petitioner, the respondents straightaway passed the proceedings dated 02.08.2023, removed her from service on the ground of providing a fake certificate.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not submitted any SSC certificate at the time of appointment. In fact, pursuant to the notification dated 05.12.2010, the petitioner participated with the qualification of 7th Class only and subsequently, while working as Mini Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner provided an SSC certificate obtained through distance mode. Hence, the question of filing the SSC certificate would not arise in this case. In fact, as per the appointment order, it clearly discloses that persons who passed 10th class appointed as Anganwadi Workers were paid Rs.2,200/- and Rs.2,138/- for those who have not passed 10th standard, and those with lower qualification will be paid Rs.2,138/- as honorarium. Anganwadi Assistants and Mini Anganwadi Workers were paid an honorarium of Rs.1,200/-. As per the appointment order dated 04.06.2011, the petitioner was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker. Hence, the question of termination on the basis SSC certificate would not arise, when the appointment was made in the year 2011. Perusal of the reference and show cause notice discloses that the complaint was made by a third party on 14.11.2018 and the show cause notice was issued on 03.02.2023. If the same is taken into consideration, the termination order of the petitioner would be a misinterpretation.

5. Considering the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance that though a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner submitted her reply clearly stating that she had submitted only 7th Class qualification and based on her qualification of 7th Class she was appointed as Mini Anganwadi Worker, and that she would subsequently pass SSC privately, the said reply was not considered while terminating the services of the petitioner.

6. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents submitted that when the respondents received a complaint with regard to the certificate, the same was referred to the concerned school and, as per the information furnished by the Head master, the petitioner’s service was terminated.

7. Considering the submissions and perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 04.06.2011. Perusal of the appointment letter reveals that there is no reference with regard to the certificate/qualification of the petitioner and there is no mention that the petitioner was appointed to the scale of Rs.2,200/- attached to persons who passed SSC. In the said circumstances, only based on a third-party complaint after lapse of considerable time, the respondents ought not to have terminated the petitioner without conducting a proper enquiry and without issuing notice, giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove herself. There is also no mention as to why SSC certificate was required to be produced.

8. In view of the above, the proceedings dated 02.08.2023 are set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to conduct a fresh enquiry, giving opportunity to the petitioner to provide all material at the time of enquiry. Till finalization of the enquiry, the respondents are directed not to fill up the said post.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 03.02.2026 RMD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 5857/2024

03.02.2026 RMD