Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anitha vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2021
Author: Satish Chandra Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT APPEAL NO.62 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. ANITHA
W/O SRINIVASA REDDY S.V.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT SEETHAREDDY HALLI VILLAGE
KALATHURU PANCHAYATH
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OFFICE
CHIKKABALAPUR - 562 101.
3. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FOR SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI
2
TEACHERS FOR KORATAGERE TALUK
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
BAGEPALLI - 562 107.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
4. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FOR SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI
TEACHERS FOR KORATAGERE TALUK
REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
BAGEPALLI - 562 107
CHIKKABALLAPUR.
5. SMT. RADHA V
W/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT SEETHAREDDYHALLI VILLAGE
YELADUR HOBLI
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4
R5 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
20.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NO.39282/2018 AND DISMISS THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
APPEAL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 20th
October 2020 passed in Writ Petition No.39282/2018 (S-RES)
(SMT.RADHA.V vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS).
2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent-
Smt.Radha.V has filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the
order dated 10.08.2018 which was relating to appointment of the
present appellant as Anganawadi Karyakarte. The appointment was
challenged on two grounds:
a) That the appointment has been issued contrary to the policy
framed for appointment of Anganawadi Karyakarte relating to
disabled persons. It was alleged that the appellant in the present
writ appeal was having a disability of 80% whereas the policy
provides for appointment of persons having less than 60% disability;
b) Another ground raised by Smt.Radha, respondent in the writ
appeal is that the certificate of residence was also not admissible as
per the guidelines for the post of Anganawadi Karyakarte as a
candidate is required to be a resident of the centre/village for which
she applies for a period of six months earlier to the notification
inviting application.
3. Paragraph Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge reads as under:
5. A perusal of the document placed before this
Court would unmistakably answer the challenge
against the appointee on both the counts. In the first
ground, the 5th respondent comes in marriage to
Seethareddyhalli Village, Yelanduru Hobli,
Srinivasapura Taluk, only on 06.09.2015, in terms of
the marriage invitation card at Annexure -G, and the
notification for selection is issued on 09.11.2015, two
months after the 5th respondent coming in marriage to
the centre where the appointment was sought to be
made. Hence, the appointment of the 5th respondent
as Anganawadi Karyakarte of Seethareddyhalli Village,
Yelanduru Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, is
vitiated on account of violation of the aforesaid
condition that a participant in the selection process
should be a resident of centre/village to which an
appointment is sought to be made at least six months
prior to the notification.
6. The appointment is also vitiated on yet
another ground. The disability of the 5th respondent in
terms of the certificate issued at Annexure - F which
indicates her disability at 80% at the time of
application. But at the time of scrutiny of the
application in terms of Annexure -H, it depicts 60%.
It becomes clear from Annexure -J which was the
information furnished to the petitioner concerning the
extent of disability of the 5th respondent which the
Taluk Panchayat says is at 80% by its communication
dated: 10.08.2016.
7. The guidelines stipulate 60% or less to be the
disability of a candidate that can be considered for
appointment to the post of Anganawadi Karyakarte. In
terms of the documents produced, it becomes clear
that the 5th respondent has a disability to the tune of
80%. Hence, on this ground as well, the appointment
of the 5th respondent stands vitiated.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:
i) Writ petition is allowed
ii) The appointment of the 5th respondent
dated:10.08.2018- Annexure -L is set aside.
iii) The respondent-State Government is directed to
notify the post afresh and consider the appointment of
eligible persons in accordance with law within six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. The documents on record makes it very clear that the
notification inviting applications was issued on 09.11.2015 and the
present appellant was married to a person in the village in question
only on 06.09.2015 and therefore, the condition in respect of
participation in the selection process providing that he/she should be
a resident of centre of the village to which an appointment is sought
to be made at least six months prior to the notification was violated
and in those circumstances, the learned single Judge has set aside
the appointment. The other important aspect of the case is that at
the time the application was submitted by the respondent-
Smt.Radha, she produced a certificate of disability as having 80%
disability and later on, she filed another disability certificate showing
60% disability.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, a candidate is
required to submit all certificates on the date of submission of
application and on that ground, the order of the learned single Judge
allowing the writ petition does not call for any interference. The
admission is declined.
The learned single Judge has directed issuance of fresh
notification. Therefore, it is made clear that the present appellant as
well as respondent No.5 shall certainly be free to apply for the post in
question. In case an application is made, the same shall be dealt
with in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
bnv*
ct-nn
