Karnataka High Court
Chanrabhagamma vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 20 December, 2023
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9357-DB
WA No. 200169 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200169 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.CHANDRABHAGAMMA
W/O CHANDRAMAPPA KOLLUR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGANWADI WORKER,
R/O HOSASIDDAPUR,
TQ: SHORAPUR, DIST-YADGIRI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
SOMANATH
PENTAPPA MITTE
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN AND CHILD,
DEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT OF
DIFFERENTLY ABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS,
GATE NO. 3, I FLOOR, M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE,
SORAPUR, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE, SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI -585220.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9357-DB
WA No. 200169 of 2023
3. THE VICE CHAIRMAN,
SELECTION COMMITTEE AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
SHORAPUR, DIST: YADGIRI-585220.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
YADGIRI, DIST: YADGIRI-585220.
5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING
OFFICER, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI-585220.
6. THE TAHSILDAR,
TAHSILDAR OFFICE,
SHORAPUR, TQ: SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI.
7. KUM. MEENAKSHI D/O GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O HOSA SIDDAPUR VILLAGE,
POST DEVARGONAL, TQ: SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI-585220.
(CLAIMING AS RESIDENT OF HOSASIDDAPURA,
BUT RESIDENT OF WARI SIDDAPUR)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T R, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S (4) OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
21.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT IN WP NO. 200288/2022 (S-RES) AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT IN TOTO AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9357-DB
WA No. 200169 of 2023
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING IA, THIS DAY,
R.DEVDAS, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL);
For the sake of convenience the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank in the writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was aggrieved of the
rejection of her application at the instance of respondent
No.7, who had also filed applications responding to a
notification dated 07.07.2021 for appointment to the post
of Anganawadi Worker. A final selection list dated
27.12.2021 was issued by the respondent-authorities and
the same was challenged by the writ petitioner.
3. The candidature of the writ petitioner was
sought to be rejected on the ground that she does not
belong to Hosa-Siddapur village, Surpur Taluk and in
terms of the regulations governing the appointment of
Anganawadi Worker and Helpers i.e. Government order
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9357-DB
dated 23.09.2017, a person has to be a resident of the
same village, where the post of Anganawadi
Worker/Helper is vacant and is sought to be filled. Another
limb of arguments was also canvassed before the learned
Single Judge that the writ petitioner had a disability of
more than 60% and therefore in terms of Clause (IÄ) of
Regulation 4, the writ petitioner could not have been
considered for the post of Anganawadi Worker or Helper.
The learned Single Judge negatived both the contentions
raised at the hands of respondent No.7 and held that the
residential proof certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Surpur
Taluk, indicated that the petitioner belongs to Hosa-
Siddapur village and therefore the same has to be
accepted.
4. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the
writ petitioner also pointed out to special provision insofar
as the persons of disability are concerned. It was pointed
out that Clause (F) of Regulation 4, clearly provided that
several residential proof certificate is furnished by a
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9357-DB
person with physical disability, the same has to be
accepted as the proof of residence. The learned counsel
would therefore submit that there is no scope for
respondent-authorities to test and verify the truth of such
certificate, having regard to the special provision put in
place insofar as the persons with physical disability are
concerned. Moreover, it is submitted that a farce of an
enquiry was held in the absence of writ petitioner and
therefore the learned Single Judge did not accept the
contention of the respondent-authorities that the writ
petitioner did not belong to Hosa-Siddapur Village.
5. Having regard to the express provisions
contained in the Government order dated 23.09.2017, it is
clear that once a proof of residence is given by a person
suffering from physical disability the same has to be
accepted and when once a certificate of disability is issued
by the competent authorities under the provisions of the
Persons with Disability Act, no other proof of disability or
the percentage of disability can be called for.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9357-DB
6. In that view of the matter, we have to accept
the contention of the writ petitioner, as was done by the
learned Single Judge that when the competent authority of
the Government of India issued a Unique Disability ID to
the writ petitioner clearly stating that she has disability of
45%, the same has to be accepted. It would also meet the
requirement of law in terms of the Government order
issued by the State of Karnataka.
7. Insofar as the proof of residence is concerned,
it is also clear from the Government order dated
23.09.2017 that special provision is made insofar the
persons with disability are concerned that whatever proof
of residential certificate is tendered by them, the same has
to be accepted as proof of their residence. Moreover, the
concerned Tahsildar has also issued the said certificate as
was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the writ
petitioner is a resident of Hosa-Siddapur village, where the
Anganawadi Center is located.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9357-DB
8. In that view of the matter, we do not find any
infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned
Single Judge. Consequently, we proceed to dismiss the
writ appeal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
