Smt.Premeela P B vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3419 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                        PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A. NO.167 OF 2021 (S-RES)


BETWEEN:

SMT. PREMEELA P.B.
S/O BYARA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O. NO.7, MUTHINAPALLI VILLAGE
BAGEPALLI TALUK,
MITTEMMARI HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST-562101.
                                         ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. GURUDHATTA K, ADV.,)


AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE-560001
       REPTD. BY SECRETARY.

2.     DIRECTOR
       DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE
       DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE-560001.
                             2




3.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
     ZILLA PANCHAYATH
     ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE
     NEAR BUS STAND
     CHIKKABALLAPURA
     CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

4.   THE CHIEF CHILD WELFARE OFFICER
     BAGEPALLI TALUK
     BAGEPALLI,
     CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

5.   SMT. MANJAMMA
     W/O MANJUNATHA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     MUTHINAPALLI VILLAGE
     MITTEMARI HOBLI
     BAGEPALLI TALUK
     CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101.

                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA)
                          ---

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA

HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED

BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.38835/2014 DT

24/11/2020 AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL.    AND TO GRANT

SUCH OTHER RELIEF.


     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS

DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                             JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against the order

dated 24.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by

which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been

dismissed.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this petition briefly

stated are that a notification dated 23.01.2014 was issued

for recruitment to the post of Anganawadi worker. The

appellant as well as respondent No.5 submitted their

applications for appointment to the post of Anganawadi

worker. The appellant as well as respondent No.5 secured

equal marks. Thereupon, the selecting authority selected

respondent No.5 on the ground that she is elder in age to the

appellant.

3. The appellant thereafter questioned the selection

and appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of

Anganawadi worker by way of a writ petition which has been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated

24.11.2020 inter alia on the ground that the Government

order does not require any preference to be given to the

Anganawadi Assistant. In the aforesaid factual background,

this appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant was working as an Anganawadi Assistant and

therefore, was entitled to preference in the matter of

appointment. It is further submitted that condition No.5 in

the Government Order dated 15.06.2012 should be

construed liberally and the requirement of service of 3 years

should be read as 2 years and 2 months.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government

Advocate submitted that since the appellant had not

completed 3 years of service as Anganawadi Assistant,

therefore, the application was invited for recruitment to the

post of Anganawadi worker. It is further submitted that

there is no merit in this appeal and no interference is called

for to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submission made by the

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Clause 5 of the Government order dated 15.06.2012 provides

for preference being given to Anganawadi Assistant who has

completed 3 years of service. Admittedly, on the date of

issuance of advertisement dated 23.01.2014, the appellant

had not completed 3 years of service as Anganawadi

Assistant and therefore, she could not have claimed any

preferential term in the matter of appointment. It is

pertinent to note that the appellant had participated in the

process of selection and after not having been selected, had

questioned the same. In other words, the appellant did not

agitate her grievance with regard to the post of Anganawadi

worker to which she was otherwise not entitled to the earliest

point of time.

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

merit. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV