Andhra Pradesh High Court
WRIT PETITION 9620 of 2021 on 31 December 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9620 OF 2021
Between;
D.VijayaBharathi,D/o VeerabhadraRao,Agedabout35years,InclusiveEducationResourcePerson(lERP)(formerlycalledasInclusiveEducationResourceTeacher)BhavithaSchool,Addatheegala, East Godavari District (under orders of termination)
AND
...Petitioner
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, SchoolEducation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,[Guntur]District.Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,[Guntur]District.
2.Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, represented by its State Project Director,Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District.Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3.Additional Project Co-ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan,[East]Godavri, Kakinada.Godavri, Kakinada.
4.District Collector and Chairman, Samagra Siksha, East[Godavari]District at Kakinada.District at Kakinada.
5.District Educational Officer, East Godavari District[at][ Kakinada.]
6.Mandal Education Officer, Addatheegala Mandal, East[Godavari]District.District.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings[in][ Rc][ .No.248967][ S]SA-IEOAPMT (IE-A)/2/2019-SA (B)S SA-EG, dated 31.12.2020 issued bytheAdditionalProjectCo-ordinator,SamgraSiksha,EastGodavari,Kakinadaterminatingtheservicesofthepetitioneriswhollyillegal.
arbitrary,withoutjurisdiction,withoutapplicationofmindviolativeof..Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being violative ofprinciples of natural Justice and consequently declare that the petitioner isentitledtobecontinuedinserviceasInclusiveEducationResourcePerson, Bavitha School, Addatheegala, East Godavari[District.]
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.248967 SSA-IEOAPMT (lE-A)/2/2019-SA (B)SSA-EG,dated31.12.2020issuedbytheAdditionalProjectCo-ordinator,SamgraSiksha,EastGodavari,Kakinadawithadirectionto the Respondentsto continuethepetitionerinserviceasInclusive Education Resource Person, Bavitha School, Addatheegala, EastGodavari District by disposing of the representation of the Petitioner, dated6-1-2021.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATIOJ
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s R. SUDHA RANI,SC for SAMGRA SIKSHA
The Court made the following order:
APHC010173722021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3458]
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT PETITION NO: 9620/2021
Between;
D. Vijaya Bharathi,
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...PETITIONER
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner;
1. ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S);
1.REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHI KSHA)
2.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
3.GP FOR SERVICESI
4..
The Court made the following;
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.
ORDER:-
Heard Ms. Adapa Ramya Sahithi Naidu, learned counsel[for][ the]
petitioner, learned Government Pleader for ServicesI, Sri Sunkara Charan,learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Revanuru[Sudha][ Rani,][ learned]Standing Counsel for Samagra Siksha, and learned Government[Pleader][ for]School Education.
\
2. The writ petition is directed against the order of therespondentwithdrawing the agreement forservices as Inclusive Education ResourceTeacher(IERT) Non Bhavitha centre, Addateegala.withdrawing the agreement forservices as Inclusive Education ResourceTeacher(IERT) Non Bhavitha centre, Addateegala.
3. The petitioner was appointed as lERT in Non-bhavitha School, School,ini.2011.She wasselectedthrougharegularselectionprocess.Theappointment was on contract basis extendable from time to time.
4. It is stated that the 3'“'^ respondent issued proceedings[dated]7-06-2020 stating that a complaint was received against the petitioner alleging thatwithout having sufficient educational qualifications the petitioner was recruitedin the service.Therefore the petitioner was asked to appear before theauthorities to explain. The petitioner appeared and submitted her explanationdated 26-6-2020statingthatafter,theinitialappointmentin2011,thepetitioner was asked to submit the original marks list and certificate issued byRehabilitation Council of lndia( RCI). Since the petitioner had lost the originalcertificate, she had to obtain certified copies and submit the same before theauthorities.It is stated that the petitioner has submitted her explanationto thenotice dated 7-06-2020. Thereafter therespondent passed the impugnedproceedings dated 31-12-2020 terminating the petitioner fromservice.
5. It is contended that the impugned proceedings refer to a show causenotice dated 30-07-2020 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why sheshould not be terminated from service for non fulfillment of the stipulationsmentioned in the appointment order dated 26-2-2014 and the reply of thepetitioner dated 1-09-2020 of the petitioner.It is contended that none of the said proceedings were served on the petitioner.It is contended that none ofthe proceedings referred to in the impugned proceedingsi.e., show causenotice dated 30-07-202^1reply dated 1-09-2020, and the enquiry report dated25-02-2020 were served on the petitioner.It is further argued the impugnedorder was passed acting on the directions of the4'^ respondent
6. The 3'"^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating[that][ the][ show]causenotice dated 30-7-2020 was sent to the petitioner through post and thesamewas received by the petitioner and she has also submitted her explanationon1-09-2020.In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit itis stated that both the notice dated 30-07-2020 and the reply of the petitionerdated 1-09-2020 were in connection to the submission of original certificatesof educational qualification and the same do not relateto the terminationproceedings.
7. Considered therival submissions.The notice dated30-07-2020refers to the directions of the collector to issue show cause noticeto thepetitioner as to why the petitioner should not be terminated from service fornon submission of the certificates of educational qualification[and]furthercalled for submission ofall the original certificatesofcertificatesof hereducational qualifications within the stipulated time under the said notice.>Further,theimpugnedproceedingsof 30-12-2020alsorefertothedirectionsofthe4threspondent,toterminatethepetitionerfromservice. None of the proceedings depicts the application of the mind by the
3rd respondent. The 3'^ respondent acted solely based on the note order^of the 4th respondent dated 28-01-2020.Thus, theproceedings are vitiatedfor non-application of mindby the disciplinary authority. The authorityexercising the jurisdiction ofa disciplinary authority must act independentlyhaving regard to the facts and ciCircumstances of the case, and exercisediscretion cast uponit rather thancomplying with the directionsof thesuperiors without applying their mind,rendering the proceedings invalidand unsustainable. Having regard to thesame, the order dated 31-12-2020, impugned in the writ petition iis set aside and the respondents are atliberty to pass orders afreshiin accordance with law after affording sufficientopportunity to the petitioner.
8. It is stated thatpursuant to the interim directions ofthis Courtdated18.06.2021the petitioneris being continuediniservice,Therespondents are hereby directedto continue, the petitioneriinservicetillpassing of further orders, if any.pursuant to the interim directions ofthis Courtdated18.06.2021the petitioneris being continuediniservice,Therespondents are hereby directedto continue, the petitioneriinservicetillpassing of further orders, if any.
9. With the above observations,be no order as to costs.
the writ petition is allowed. There shall closed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications’ P^riding if any, shall stand To, //TRUE COPY//
Sd/- M SRINIVASASSISTANTK^ISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
^Secretary, School Education Department, State of Andhrai^radesh. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.i^radesh. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.2- The State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha AbhiyanAndhra PradeshVijayawada, Krishna District.Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3- The Additional Project Co-ordinator, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, EastGodavri, Kakinada.Godavri, Kakinada.
4. The District Collector and Chairman, Samagra Siksha,[East][ Godavari]District at Kakinada.District at Kakinada.
5. The District Educational Officer, East Godavari[District][ at][ Kakinada.]
6. The Mandal Education Officer, Addatheegala Mandal,[East][ Godavari]District.District.
7. One CC to Sri Adapa Ramya Sahithi Naidu, Advocate [OPUC]
)^One CC to Sri R. Sudha Rani, SC for Samgra Siksha[[OPUC]]
9Two CCs to GP for School Education, High Court of[Andhra][ Pradesh.][OUT][OUT]
10. Two CCs to GP for Services -1, High Court of Andhra[Pradesh.][OUT][OUT]
11. Two CD Copies
RAM
HIGH COURT
1DATED:30/04/2025
ORDERWP.No.9620 of 2021
ALLOWING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS
eomi Nfir £ig^^ONV dOi:I13 JUN 20?5m05'SsA-Ar