Monamma W/O Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5699 Kant

                            1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                        PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

                          AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE


       WRIT APPEAL NO.200039/2022 (S-RES)

Between

Smt.Monamma W/o Suresh,
Age : 28 years, OCc: Household,
R/o Kurdi, Tq : Manvi,
Dist : Raichur.
                                                 ...Appellant
(By Smt.Hema L.K, Advocate)

AND

1. The State of Karnataka,
   Represented by its Principal Secretary,
   Women and Child Development Department,
   Vidhan Soudha, Bengaluru.

2. The Deputy Director of Women
   and Child Development Department,
   Raichur - 584 101.

3. The Child Development and Planning Officer,
   Tq : Manvi, Dist : Raichur - 584 101.
                                2




4. The Deputy Commissioner,
   Raichur District, Raichur - 584 101.

5. Smt.Marthamma W/o Ravikumar,
   Age : 22 years, Occ: Anganwadi Assistant,
   R/o Kurdi, Anganwadi Centre No.9,
   Tq: Manvi, Dist : Raichur - 584203.
                                           ...Respondents

(Sri Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, GA for R1 to R4;
Sri Huleppa Heroor, Advocate for R5)

      This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961 praying to set aside the
impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Single Bench of this Court in W.P.No.202438/2021 and
dismiss the writ petition directing the respondents to
consider the appellant's representation dated 08.07.2021,
13.07.2021 and 23.07.2021 as per Annexures 'P', 'P1' and
'P2' in the interest of justice and equity.


      This appeal coming on for Hearing on interlocutory
applications,   this   day   Anant   Ramanath    Hegde   J.,
delivered the following:


                           JUDGMENT

The dispute is between Smt.Monamma and

Smt.Marthamma, both of them claim to be eligible to be

eligible to be appointed as Anganawadi Worker in Kurdi-1

Village, Anganawadi Center.

2. Smt.Monamma who is assailing the correctness

of the order dated 10.02.2022 passed in Writ Petition

No.202438/2021, passed in favour of Smt.Marthamma.

3. Smt.Monamma the appellant in this matter is

not a party to the writ petition. However, she has filed an

application seeking permission to prosecute this appeal on

the ground that her right to claim appointment as

Anganwadi Worker is affected in terms of the impugned

order dated 10.02.2022. Admittedly she was not made a

party to the proceedings and she was not heard before

passing the impugned order.

4. In terms of the impugned order, the learned

Single Judge of this court has quashed the notification

dated 09.02.2021 issued by the second respondent inviting

applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1

Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. Appellant

Smt.Monamma had applied for the post under the said

notification.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate

for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.5.

6. We have considered the application filed by the

appellant seeking permission to prosecute the appeal. The

appellant has made out a ground to prosecute the appeal.

She has applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in terms

of the notification dated 09.02.2021. Subsequently same

was considered and in terms of a decision taken on

02.07.2021, the selection Committee found that the

present appellant is eligible. Said Committee also opined

that fifth respondent-Smt.Marthamma being in house

candidate is eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker.

Appellant claims that she being the highest marks holder is

entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. However,

the authority without taking any decision as to who is

eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker sought

opinion from the higher authorities to know who is eligible

for appointment as Anganwadi Worker between appellant

and the fifth respondent of this appeal. Now in view of the

impugned order, the notification dated 09.02.2021 under

which the appellant filed application for appointment of

Anganwadi Worker is quashed.

7. It is the contention of the appellant that the

impugned order takes away her right to be considered for

the post of Anganwadi Worker and she ought to have been

heard before passing the impugned order.

8. On the other hand, the learned cousenl counsel

appearing for the fifth respondent would urge that no

appointment order is passed in favour of the appellant as

such she is not having any locus to challenge the

impugned order.

9. Perused the records and the impugned order.

The learned Single Judge of this court has allowed the writ

petition on the premise that the vacancy to appoint

Anganwadi Worker has arisen on account of death of

Smt.Husainamma who was working as Anganwadi Worker.

The learned Single Judge has also observed that the

application alleged to have been submitted by the fifth

respondent foregoing her claim for promotion is taken

under coercion/undue influence. The learned Single Judge

has also noticed that in view of the applicable guidelines,

the notification could not have been published in 2021

inviting the application for appointment of Anganwadi

Worker as in house candidate is available for promotion.

10. However, it is noticed that the decision of the

Committee dated 02.07.2021 which records a finding that

the present appellant and fifth respondent are eligible for

appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker is not

brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Thus,

this court is of the opinion that the present appellant was a

necessary party to the proceeding before the learned

Single Judge in the writ petition. Hence, the appellant is

permitted to prosecute this appeal.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the

appellant would contend that the fifth respondent has

given up her right to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker

through promotion available to in house candidate. And

learned counsel would invite the attention of the court to

the letter dated 15.10.2019 alleged to have been

submitted by the fifth respondent wherein she has

expressed her unwillingness to be promoted as Anganwadi

Worker. Based on this it is urged that the authority had no

option but to invite application for filling the post of

Anganwadi Worker. Thus, it is contended that the

notification is published in accordance with law inviting

application for Anganwadi Worker and same cannot be

questioned.

12. The learned counsel for fifth respondent would

submit that under the Government guidelines, if the in

house candidate is available for filling the post of

Anganwadi Worker, notification inviting applications for the

post of Anganwadi Worker cannot be issued. Since, fifth

respondent is available as in house candidate the

notification inviting application for the post of Anganwadi

Worker itself is illegal and would urge that the appellant

has no locus standi to make a claim for appointment or to

be considered for appointment as an Anganwadi Worker.

13. This court has perused the records. There is no

dispute that the notification was published inviting

applications for appointment of Anganwadi Workers and

the present appellant has filed an application pursuant to

the said notification. It is also relevant to note that before

publishing the notification inviting applications for the post

of Anganwadi Worker, the fifth respondent was asked to

furnish documents to consider her eligibility for being

promoted as Anganwadi Worker. However, the fifth

respondent in terms of application dated 15.10.2019 is

said to have expressed her unwillingness. The learned

counsel for respondent No.5 by referring to said document

would contend that no such unwillingness is expressed by

the fifth respondent. This court at this stage is not going to

interpret the said document. However, there is no dispute

that acting on the said document the concerned authorities

have invited the application for the post of Anganwadi

Worker. The competent authority pursuant to the

notification carried out certain exercise to find out as to

who are eligible candidates to be appointed as Anganwadi

Workers. It is noticed by the competent authority that the

present appellant has secured more marks and she is

eligible. At the same time, the fifth respondent of this

appeal/writ petitioner is also found to be eligible because

she is in house candidate and she has filed an application

to consider her candidature as a person entitled to for

promotion, though she is said to have expressed

unwillingness earlier. However, the selection Committee

has not taken any decision to appoint either of the two. On

the other hand, has deemed it appropriate to seek opinion

of higher officers. Since, the Committee is formed to select

the eligible Anganwadi Worker, the decision to select the

eligible candidate is to be taken by the said Committee. It

cannot seek the opinion of the higher officer in this regard.

14. Under the circumstances, this court is of the

opinion that the writ appeal is to be allowed and the

matter is required to be remitted back to the respondent-

authority to pass appropriate orders on the claim of the

present appellant and fifth respondent who have made a

claim for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1

village, Taluk Manvi, District Raichur.

15. The writ appeal is allowed in part.

16. The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed

in Writ Peittion No.202438/2021 by the Hon'ble Single

Bench of this court is hereby set aside.

17. The matter is to be remitted back to the higher

authority to take a decision as who is to be appointed as

Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 village, Anganwadi Center,

Manvi Taluk, Raichur District.

18. The decision in this regard shall be taken by

the Committee appointed for the purpose as per the rules

and guidelines applicable for appointment of Anganwadi

Worker in Kurdi-1 village.

19. It is made clear that this court has not

expressed any opinion as who is eligible for appointment of

Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 Village between the

appellant and the fifth respondent.

20. It is also made clear that merely because the

appellant's application to prosecute the appeal is allowed

the order of this court should not be construed as an order

recognizing the right of the appellant to be appointed as

Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur

Taluk.

21. In view of the disposal of the main appeal,

pending interlocutory applications do not survive for

consideration. Accordingly, dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE sn