AP High Court Grants ₹25K Cost To Anganwadi Worker Wrongfully Terminated By State, Directs Reinstatement

Regarding the issue of 'exceeding' the prescribed age limit, Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao said,

“If the notification specifies the age limit as "not exceeding 35 years" on a particular date, it means a candidate's age should be less than 36 years and should not cross the age of 35 years, petitioner born on 01.01.1977 and the maximum age to apply as per notification is 35 years as on 01.07.2011. If it calculated the age of the petitioner is 34 years 6 months as she not completed the age of 35 years as per the recruitment notification. The maximum age limit indicates that the individual must not exceed the age notified in the notification.”

Noting that the termination order was passed by the Project Officer Child Development Agency (Respondent 4) on the basis of mere complaints without according the petitioner any show-cause notice to explain her case, the court said:

“On comprehending the facts from impugned order, it is clear that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The respondent authorities appear to have deliberately terminated the petitioner, based on a complaint from two villagers, suggesting that they did not act independently or use their own judgment. Instead, they seem to have fulfilled their responsibilities at the direction of these two villagers, acting in a subordinate manner to those who lodged the complaint, hence the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly it is set aside.”

Accordingly, cost of Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner for the "mental agony" caused to her due to termination of her services. 

Background

The petitioner's services were terminated vide proceedings dated 08.01.2013– after complaints were made regarding her age and residence. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court praying that the termination be set aside and her services be continued.

She argued that the termination was issued on the basis of mere complaints without the issuance of any show-cause notice or the conduct of an enquiry. Additionally, she submitted that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Amdalvalasa, clearly showed that she belonged to Ponnampeta and the 10th class certificate highlighted that she had not crossed the age of 35 years.

On the contrary, the Respondents justified the termination contending that the selection of the petitioner was made due to an oversight and the termination order was passed following the receipt of multiple complaints to rectify the same. While the petitioner was continuing in service owing to interim orders passed in 2013, she was asked to vacate the interim order in 2018. The sole ground raised by respondents was that the petitioner had exceeded the prescribed age limit.

As the counter filed by the respondents did not expressly deny that the petitioner belonged to Ponnampeta, the Court presumed that the petitioner was in fact a resident of the village. Additionally, as per the Court's calculation, the petitioner's age was found to be 34 years 6 months, which was well within the limit specified in the recruitment notification.

The court thus allowed the plea.

Case Title: SMT. VANA LAKSHMI v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT, SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANVADI WORKERS/HELPERS

Click Here To Read/Download Order