Common Order:

1. Present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

                  “…to issue writ or order or direction, particularly, Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the proceedings issued by the 4th Respondent vide R.C.No.43- A/2023, dt. 21-11-2023 and R.C.No.18-A/2022, dt. 15.07.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and against to the settled principles of natural justice and law and to consequently, direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Record Assistant and to release the salary and benefits from October 2023…”

2. This Court passed the following interim order on 27.03.2025:

                  “Learned Government Pleader for School Education takes notice for respondent No.1.

                  Issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6.

                  Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6 through registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the Registry.

                  Prima facie, the impugned proceedings vide R.C.No.18- A/2022 dated 15.07.2024, passed by the 4th respondent is without any prior notice and proper inquiry. Therefore, the same shall stand suspended and petitioner shall be reinstated to the post of Record Assistant, pending further orders.

                  List the matter after four (04) weeks.”

3. Complaining non-compliance of aforesaid interim order, writ petitioner preferred Contempt Case No.1508 of 2025. The respondents in the writ petition eventually filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 along with counter- affidavit, seeking vacation of interim order.

4. With the consent of both learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, the very main writ petition is taken up for hearing.

5. Petitioner stated to have been appointed on compassionate grounds as Record Assistant by proceedings in Rc.No.4-A/2022, dated 16.02.2022. Petitioner’s father earlier stated to have worked with respondents as Attender, and he passed away in harness on 17.02.2021 and that her mother pre-deceased. Though, petitioner was married on 09.12.2010, on account of disputes in her marriage, she has been living separately along with his father since 2019. There were certain proceedings pending before the Family Court for annulment of marriage. However, abruptly, petitioner has been served notice through Librarian, Athmakuru, that petitioner came to be removed from service with effect from 04.01.2024. Petitioner has later submitted explanation to the said notice, which was stated to have been received belatedly after more than 8 months. In that view of the matter, petitioner has preferred present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily contended that the impugned proceedings, dated 15.07.2024, removing petitioner from service, were in clear violation of principles of natural justice and inasmuch as the same has not been preceded by show-cause notice or enquiry and therefore, unilateral termination is clearly arbitrary and illegal. He has also tried to make submissions with respect to the merits of the matter to contend that even married daughters were also eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment, and in peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner was rightly appointed so.

7. The respondents have filed detailed counter-affidavit touching upon merits of the matter. However, the counter-affidavit does not deny the aspect of passing impugned order without there being any show- cause notice or enquiry.

8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to go into the merits of the matter as to whether the very appointment of petitioner was valid or not. On the sole ground that the removal order, dated 15.07.2024, since did not precede with any show- cause notice nor any enquiry, the same requires to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings, dated 15.07.2024, issued by the 4th respondent. The respondents are further directed to reinstate the petitioner back into service forthwith and continue to pay petitioner salary as she was being paid earlier. The respondents are further at liberty to proceed with enquiry, if at all they choose to do so by strictly following due process of law.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that petitioner was not paid salary from October, 2023 till the date of issuance of impugned proceedings.

11. The respondents are directed to verify as to whether petitioner has been in service during the said period and if the attendance register does reflect her presence and working, the respondents shall pay salary for the said period within four weeks from today. No order as to costs.

12. In view of the aforesaid order in the writ petition, the Contempt Case stands closed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.