Karnataka High Court
R Roopa vs State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Ravi V Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
W.A.No.768/2021 (S - RES)
BETWEEN :
R.ROOPA
W/O S.D.NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O SRINIVASA AGRAHARA VILLAGE
K.SHETTIHALLI HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI P.MAHESHA, ADV.)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
WOMEN'S AND CHILD WELFARE
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER
ANGANAVADI WORKERS
SELECTION COMMITEE
SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK, MANDYA
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WOMEN'S AND CHILD WELFARE
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
-2-
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
MANDYA
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA
5. SMT.HEMALATHA M.B.,
W/O CHELUVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O SRINIVASA AGRAHARA VILLAGE
K.SHETTIHALLI HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.P.SRINIVASA, PRL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R-1;
R-2 TO R-5 ARE SERVED.)
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION No.31255/2016 DATED
23.03.2021, ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO CONDUCT FRESH RECRUITMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the
order dated 23.3.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.31255/2016, whereby the writ petition
filed by the appellant has been allowed, however the
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to conduct
selection afresh for the post of Anganawadi Worker of
Srinivasa Agrahara Anganawadi Centre, within a time
frame.
2. Pursuant to the notification issued by the
respondent No.2 - authority calling for applications
from suitable candidates for selection of Anganawadi
worker in Srirangapatna Taluk, the appellant and the
respondent No.5 along with others applied for the said
post. As per the eligibility criteria fixed in the said
notification, the primary conditions were that the
applicant shall not exceed 35 years of age as on
25.5.2015; the applicant shall be a resident of the same
village; the applicant shall obtain a residential
certificate from the Tahsildar for the proof of residence
for the last six months and the same shall be annexed
along with the application. The respondent No.5 was
appointed as the Anganawadi worker and the
appointment was questioned by the appellant in the
writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge having examined
the relevant mandatory conditions for considering the
applications vis-à-vis the admitted fact of respondent
No.5 not producing the residential certificate, whereby
she was not entitled to participate in the selection
process, the appointment of the respondent No.5 was
quashed not being in conformity with the guidelines and
the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Government
Order dated 19.4.2014. However, respondent Nos.2 and
3 have been directed to conduct selection afresh for the
said post of Anganawadi worker. Hence, this writ
appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the learned Single Judge having rightly
found that the appointment of the respondent No.5 is
illegal, ought to have directed the respondent Nos.2 and
3 to consider the candidature of the appellant for the
post of Anganawadi worker. If fresh application is
called for, the appellant would not get an opportunity to
file an application since she is age barred now. The
learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact
that except the appellant no other candidate was eligible
as on the date of appointment and as such the
respondent - authority ought to have been directed to
appoint the appellant for the post of Anganawadi
worker. Thus, seeks for interference by this Court.
5. There is no representation on behalf of the
respondent No.5.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit
that as per Annexure-R, three candidates have
submitted applications for the post of Anganawadi
worker of Srinivasa Agrahara. Respondent No.5 has
secured 46.4%, the appellant has secured 41.12% and
another candidate Smt.Leelavathi has secured 36.64%
marks in the SSLC examination. Since the respondent
No.5 has not produced the residential certificate as
required under the guidelines and the Government
Order dated 19.4.2014, the learned Single Judge has
quashed the appointment of the respondent No.5. The
said respondent No.5 has neither challenged the order
of the learned Single Judge nor appeared before this
Court despite duly served.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties as aforesaid, it is evident that the
challenge to the order of the learned Single Judge is in a
narrow compass i.e., only with respect to the direction
issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conduct
selection afresh for the post of Anganawadi worker,
Srinivasa Agrahara Anganawadi Centre.
8. It is apparent that clauses V, VI, and VII of
the guidelines dated 19.4.2014 prescribes the
documents required to be produced along with the
application which includes the residential certificate
obtained from the Tahsildar. Clause VIII(4) of the said
guidelines contemplates that if any of the documents is
not enclosed along with the application, the said
application shall be rejected. Despite the residential
certificate not being enclosed with the application,
respondent Nos.2 and 3 had appointed respondent No.5
and accordingly, the same is quashed rightly by the
learned Single Judge.
9. It is unfortunate that the appellant for no
fault of her has lost the opportunity of getting selected
and appointed as Anganawadi worker in view of the
application submitted by the respondent No.5 sans the
requisite documents. Though the appellant was eligible
at the time of filing the application pursuant to the
notification dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure-A), now she is
age barred to apply for the same, if the selection process
is commenced afresh. As per the available material on
record, candidature of three applicants were considered
and respondent No.5 was selected and appointed. If her
appointment is set aside, the next eligible candidate
would be the appellant herein, however, subject to
fulfilling other criteria. Hence, instead of denying the
entitlement on the basis of the eligibility, it would be
proper to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider
the candidature of the other applicants who had applied
for the post of Anganawadi worker.
10. Thus, we are of the considered view that the
interest of justice and equity would be sub-served in
directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the
candidature of the other candidates, who had applied
for the post of Anganawadi worker of Srinivasa Agrahara
along with all the requisite documents. Hence, the
order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the said
extent.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the
following;
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The order dated 23.3.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31255/2016
quashing the impugned order of
appointment of respondent No.5 bearing
No.G¤ªÀÄABL¹örBCAPÁPÀBDAiÉÄÌ.DöB2015-2016 dated
16.3.2016 (Annexure - F) issued by the
respondent No.3 remains undisturbed.
iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to
consider the candidature of the other
candidates who had applied for the post of
Anganawadi worker at Anganawadi Centres
of Srinivasa Agrahara, pursuant to the
notification dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure-A), if
otherwise eligible and take appropriate
decision for the appointment of Anganawadi
worker in accordance with law in an expedite
manner, in any event, not later than two
- 10 -
months from the date of receipt of the copy
of this order.
iv) With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the order of the learned Single
Judge is modified allowing the writ appeal in
part.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
nd
