Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1764/2026 of Smt M RUSHI MEENAKSHI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 1 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 1764/2026 Between: 1. SMT M RUSHI MEENAKSHI, W/O. VEERA SATHISH, AGED 40 YEARS, COMMUNITY
APHC010023212026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 1764/2026
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. SMT M RUSHI MEENAKSHI, W/O. VEERA SATHISH, AGED 40 YEARS, COMMUNITY
COORDINATOR (REMOVED FROM SERVICE), P. THIMMAPURAM CLUSTER, PITHAPURAM MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, R/O. D. SLO.13-2-17KV, JAGGAYYA CHERUVU, NEAR
RAMALAYAM, PITHAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522232
2. THE SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY SERP, 2ND FLOOR, NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION (PNBS), VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.520013
3. THE DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, , SERP, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, DRDA-SERP, KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.533001
...RESPONDENT(S):
DR,J W.P.No.1764 of 2026
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in removing the Petitioner from service vide the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 in Ref C/HR/27/2024, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and opposed to all canons of justice Consequently, suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 issued by the 1st respondent in Ref C/HR/27/2024, by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as Community Coordinator with all attendant benefits and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
DR,J W.P.No.1764 of 2026
The Court made the following ORDER:-
The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in removing the Petitioner from service vide the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 in Ref C/HR/27/2024, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and opposed to all canons of justice Consequently, suspend the operation of the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 issued by the 1st respondent in Ref C/HR/27/2024, by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as Community Coordinator with all attendant benefits…”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are contrary to the record and were passed without providing proper opportunity to the petitioner. In fact, as per the charge memo dated 06.02.2024, the petitioner specifically requested the authorities to provide the necessary material to submit her explanation; however, the respondent authorities neither furnished the material nor considered her request and proceeded with the enquiry and passed the impugned orders. Further, he also submits that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Executive Officer, SERP, Vijayawada, on 18.11.2025, but the respondents neither considered nor numbered the said appeal.
DR,J W.P.No.1764 of 2026
4. Reply to the same, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, furnished by the Project Director, dated 30.01.2026 has submitted that the appeal pending before the authority i.e., CEO, SERP will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed within reasonable time.
5. Considering the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 02.02.2026
Dvs
DR,J W.P.No.1764 of 2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.1764 of 2026
Dated: 02.02.2026
Dvs