Karnataka High Court
K.L.Ranjitha vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 January, 2021
Author: B.V.Nagarathna And Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.544 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
K.L.RANJITHA
DAUGHTER OF LOKESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT KURUDI VILLAGE
KITHUR POST
DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 512.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI:SANTHOSH R NELKUDRI, ADVOCATE (PH))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
BY THE SECRETARY.
2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FOR ANGANAWADI WORKER AND HELPER
OFFICE OF THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT
2
PROJECT OFFICE
VIDYANAGAR
DAVANAGERE-577 512.
REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
KUVEMPU NAGAR
BEHIND BAPUJI HIGH SCHOOL
DAVANAGERE-577 512.
4. SHRUTHI B
WIFE OF THIPPESWAMY J.S.
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
KURUDI VILLAGE
KITHUR POST
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 512.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 (PH);
SMT: RASHMI K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI: M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (VC))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15/10/2020 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.22670 OF 2015 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND THE SAID WRIT PETITION
BE DISMISSED BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed to consider IA.3 of 2020
which has been filed by respondent No.4 seeking vacating
of the interim order dated 23/11/2020, with the consent
of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.
2. The legality and correctness of the order dated
15/10/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.22670 of 2015 by
the learned Single Judge of this Court is called in question
in this intra-court appeal.
3. Respondent No.2, being the Selection
Committee, issued Notification dated 26/07/2014
(Annexure-A) inviting applications from eligible candidates
for the post of Anganawadi worker. The Notification was
issued in conformity with the guidelines dated 19/04/2014
(Annexure-B). In response to the said Notification, writ
petitioner and respondent No.4 submitted their
applications. Respondent No.2 rejected the application
submitted by respondent No.4 on the ground that the
domicile certificate submitted by her was not within six
months from the date fixed for submitting the application,
which is one of the requirements to be eligible for
appointment to the post. The provisional selection list was
published on 27/11/2014 (Annexure-F) selecting the
petitioner for the post as per the proceedings of the
Committee dated 20/11/2014 (Annexure-E). Respondent
No.4 submitted her objection dated 29/11/2014
(Annexure-G) to the provisional selection list on the ground
that even according to the proceedings of the Committee,
she is more meritorious than the petitioner and further the
domicile certificate submitted by her is valid for a period of
one year. Therefore, she had to be considered for the post
of Anganawadi worker by revising the provisional select
list.
4. Respondent No.3 considered the objection filed
by respondent No.4 and published the final select list
(Annexure-H) appointing respondent No.4 to the post of
Anganawadi worker, which was under challenge by the
petitioner in the writ petition.
5. Learned Single Judge considering the
contention of both the parties allowed the writ petition by
quashing Annexure-H and directing respondent Nos.2 and
3 to re-consider petitioner's selection and appointment to
the post of Anganawadi worker, Kurudi Anganawadi Centre
from the date of appointment of respondent No.4. It is
also ordered that the petitioner is also entitled to 50% of
the salary during the period from 13/02/2015 till the date
of appointment to the post and she is also entitled to all
service benefits including seniority and other benefits.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been directed to pay 50% of
the salary to the petitioner within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of order. The same is called in
question by respondent No.4 by preferring this appeal.
6. We have heard Sri.Santhosh R.Nelkudri,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran,
learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and Smt.K.Rashmi, learned counsel for
Sri.M.Subramanaya Bhat, for respondent No.4 and perused
the material on record.
7. As per Notification (Annexure-A), one of the
requirements is, the applicant to the post of Anganawadi
worker shall be a resident of the village concerned and
shall produce domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar
within six months from the date fixed for submitting the
application. Admittedly, the appellant herein submitted the
Domicile Certificate (Annexure-D), which was issued by the
Tahsildar on 09/01/2014. As per the Notification
(Annexure-A), the last date for submitting the application
was 27/08/2014. Therefore, it is clear that Annexure-D
submitted by respondent No.4 was beyond the period of six
months from the date fixed for submitting the application
and it clearly violates one of the conditions of eligibility for
the post.
8. The learned Single Judge referred to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunwar Pal Singh
(Dead) by LRs Vs State of U.P. and others [(2007) 5
SCC 85], to hold that when the Notification prescribes
specific condition for the eligibility of the candidate to
submit the application, the same cannot be waived or
relaxed subsequently. The finding of the learned Single
Judge in this regard cannot be held to be erroneous. There
is absolutely no reason as to why one of the conditions
imposed in the Notification calling for the application was
subsequently relaxed while publishing selection list
selecting the appellant herein for the post concerned. The
contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant
that Domicile Certificate (Annexure-D) issued by the
Tahsildar dated 09/01/2014 is valid for a period of one
year cannot be a reason for either waiving or relaxing the
condition imposed in the Notification (Annexure-A).
Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single
Judge allowing the writ petition.
9. However, the writ petitioner is held to be
entitled for 50% of salary for the period from 13/02/2015
till the date of appointment to the post of Anganawadi
worker and for all the service benefits including the
seniority and other benefits. Admittedly, the petitioner
was neither appointed nor worked as Anganawadi worker.
On the other hand, the appellant herein was appointed for
the said post with effect from 13/02/2015. Therefore,
entitlement of the petitioner for 50% of the salary from the
date of appointment of the appellant herein to the post
cannot be justified. Applying the principle of 'no work no
pay', we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner is not
entitled for monetary benefit for the period from
13/02/2015 till the date of her appointment to the post.
However, she is entitled for notional fixation of her salary
with effect from 13/02/2015 with continuity of service
from the said date which shall be considered for the
purpose of her retirement benefits.
10. Under the circumstances, writ appeal is
allowed in part and disposed in the following manner:
Reconsideration of selection and appointment to the
post of Anganawadi worker, Kurudi Anganawadi Centre,
from the date of appointment of respondent No.4 as
ordered by the learned Single Judge is sustained. She is
deemed to be appointed from 13/02/2015.
Respondent No.4 shall not be entitled to 50% of the
salary from the period from 13/02/2015 till the date of her
appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker. However,
respondent No.4 shall be entitled to notional fixation of her
salary with effect from 13/02/2015 and continuity of
service from the said date which shall be considered for
the purpose of her retirement benefits.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall appoint respondent No.4
in place of the appellant herein within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, IA No.3 of
2020 is allowed and disposed.
IA Nos.1 of 2020 and 2 of 2020 stand disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*bgn/-
