Karnataka High Court
Tasleema W/O Late Shabbir vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 21 January, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No. 222760 OF 2020 (S-RES)
Between:
Tasleema
W/o. Late Shabbir,
Age: 24 years,
Occ:Nil,
R/o.Govindpalli Village,
Tq: Devadurga,
District: Raichur-584 126.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Mahantesh Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Director,
Women and Child Development Dept.,
M.S. Building,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Anganawadi Worker's Selection Committee,
Represented by President,
(Deputy Commissioner)
Raichur, Dist: Raichur-584 101.
3. The Deputy Director,
2
Women and Child Development Department,
Raichur-584 101.
4. The Child Development,
Planning Officer (CDPO)
Taluk: Devadurga,
District: Raichur-584 111.
5. Smt.Siddamma,
W/o. Veeresh,
Age: Major,
Occ: Housewife,
R/o.: Govindpalli Village,
Tq: Devadurga,
District: Raichur-584 126.
... Respondents
(By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, AGA for R1 to R4
Sri. J.Augustin, Advocate for R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to a) Issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari to quash the impugned provisional
selection list dated: 04.11.2019 only with respect to
Govindpallil-02 Village, Devadurga Taluka, Raichur District
(Item No.5) issued by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-D
and etc.,
In this writ petition, arguments being heard,
judgment reserved, coming on for pronouncement of
orders today, this Court made the following:
3
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
provisional selection list dated 04.11.2019 (Annexure C)
and endorsement dated 28.01.2020 issued by the 4 th
respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that 3rd
respondent has invited application from the eligible
candidates for the post of Anaganwadi worker, Raichur
District, as per Annexures- A and A1. The petitioner had
applied for the post of Anganawadi worker of Govindappali
village, Devadurga Taluk, through online. It is further
stated in the petition that petitioner has mentioned in her
application that she is a widow. 5th respondent has also
applied for the same post. 4th respondent published
temporary provisional selection list, selecting 5 th
respondent for the said post. The petitioner filed objections
to the provisional selection vide Annexure-C stating that
she is a widow and having preference over 5 th respondent.
4th respondent appointed 5th respondent for the post of
Anganawadi worker and as such, it is the case of the
petitioner that, without considering the claim of the
petitioner, 4th respondent has issued endorsement dated
28.01.2020, rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner
to the said provisional selection list. Being aggrieved by
the same ,the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. Heard Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4
and Sri. S. Augustin, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
3. Sri. Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is a widow and she has
produced the postmortem report of her husband as per
Annexure- B5. However, 4th respondent without
considering the same, and following the Guidelines laid
down in Annexure-A1, passed the impugned endorsement
which requires to be set aside.
4. Per contra, Sri. Shivakumar Tengli, learned
AGA appearing for respondents 1 to 4, made submission in
support of the impugned orders.
5. Sri S.Augustin, learned counsel for respondent
No.5, submitted that as per 7 of Clause VII of Revised
Guidelines produced at Annexure- A1, the petitioner ought
to have produced the death certificate of her husband and
as the petitioner has not produced the same, the
application made by the petitioner was rightly rejected by
4th respondent. He further contended that 5 th respondent
has reported to the post of Anganawadi Worker on
28.01.2020 as per Annexure- R4 to the statement of
objections and therefore, he contended that, the writ
petition does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, Clause-VII of the Revised Guidelines vide
Annexure- A1 stipulates that the necessary documents to
be uploaded by the candidates while uploading their details
in the application. Clause-VII further provides that, if the
applicant is widow, she has to produce the death certificate
of her husband. The learned Additional Government
Advocate made available the records from the office of 4 th
respondent and same demonstrates that though the
petitioner has filed an application stating that, she is a
widow, however, she not produced or uploaded any
documents at the time of uploading the application as
required Clause-VII of Revised Guidelines as per
Annexure-A1. However, the petitioner has produced the
postmortem report of her husband along with the death
certificate of her husband along with objections produced
at Annexure-D. The respondent-authorities following the
Government Order dated 23.09.2017 rejected the claim
made by the petitioner on the ground that she has not
uploaded the copy of the death certificate of her husband
at the time of uploading the application, seeking
appointment for the post of Anganwadi Worker in terms of
Annexures-A and A1. In that view of the matter, it is
evident from the original records and as the petitioner has
not uploaded the documents as required under the
Guidelines, considering the case of the petitioner, at the
belated stage, does not arise. Therefore, I do not find any
illegality in the impugned orders passed by 4th respondent.
Resultantly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
