[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Savitri Bhoopal Kamble vs The Director on 17 December, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
WA No. 100539 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
WRIT APPEAL NO.100539 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAVITRI BHOOPAL KAMBLE
@ SMT. SAVITRI MAYUR MASNAIK,
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, RAIBAG,
TALUK. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR,
WOMEN & CHILD WELFARE
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT, BELAGAVI,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
TALUK & DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-590016.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
3. MEMBER SECRETARY AND PROJECT OFFICER,
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ICDS,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
RAIBAG, TALUKA RAIBAG & DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
4. SMT. SUDHARANI RAMESH KAMBLE
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR, WARD NO.16,
RAIBAG, TALUKA-RAIBAG & DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
WA No. 100539 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 07-02-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.111886/2019 (S-RES), IN ALLOWING THE SAID WRIT
PETITION, BE KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE SAID WRIT PETITION
NO.111886/2019 (S-RES), FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 HEREIN,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
Respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge is
before this Court under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961, aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2023 in
W.P.No.111886/2019, whereunder respondent No.4's
appointment as Anganawadi worker is set aside with a
direction to recover the salary, as her appointment to the
post of Anganawadi worker is illegal.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their
ranking before the learned Single Judge. The appellant was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 herein was petitioner
before the learned Single Judge.
3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Deepak S. Kulkarni for
respondent No.4/appellant, learned Additional Government
Advocate Sri.Sharad V. Magadum for respondent Nos.1 to 3
and learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra A. Mali for petitioner.
Perused the entire writ appeal papers.
4. The third respondent under notification dated
25.10.2018 called applications to fill up the post of
Anganawadi worker at Raibag Pattana Panchayathi, Ward
No.16 called as 'Ambedkar Nagar Anganawadi Center' and
in pursuance to the said notification, the petitioner as well
as respondent No.4 applied for the post of Anganawadi
worker. The petitioner applied enclosing residential
certificate to establish that she is the resident of Ward
No.16. However, respondent No.4, who is resident of Ward
No.15, applied for the post of Anganawadi worker
contending that Ambedkar Nagar falls within Ward Nos.15
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
HC-KAR
and 16 of Raibag Pattana Panchayathi. Respondent No.4
was selected and appointed as Anganawadi worker,
Ambedkar Nagar Anganawadi Center. The said selection and
appointment of respondent No.4 was challenged by the
petitioner in the above stated writ petition. Learned Single
Judge on the ground that the fourth respondent is resident
of Ward No.15, set aside the appointment of fourth
respondent as Anganawadi worker directing respondent
No.2 to re-consider the issue afresh at the earliest, with a
further direction to recover the salary paid to the fourth
respondent, as her appointment to the post of Anganawadi
worker is illegal. Questioning the said order of the learned
Single Judge, petitioner is in appeal.
5. Learned counsel Sri.Deepak S. Kulkarni for
respondent No.4/appellant would submit that the
notification dated 25.10.2018 inviting applications for the
post of Anganawadi workers would clearly indicate that the
name of Anganawadi Center is Ambedkar Nagar of Raibag
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
HC-KAR
Pattana Panchayathi and he further submits that Ambedkar
Nagar falls within ward Nos.15 and 16 of Raibag Pattana
Panchayathi. Therefore, he justifies the selection of the
fourth respondent, who is the resident of Ward No.15 of
Raibag Pattana Panchayathi. Learned counsel would further
submit that learned Single Judge was not justified in setting
aside the appointment of fourth respondent and directing
recovery of salary paid to the fourth respondent, since the
fourth respondent has worked as Anganawadi Worker and
for the work carried out, the fourth respondent would be
entitled for salary.
6. Learned counsel Sri.Deepak S. Kulkarni for
respondent No.4 would invite attention of this Court to the
Government order dated 23.09.2017 which lays down
guidelines for selection and appointment of Anganawadi
workers and submits that for selection, the Selecting
Authority shall look into the Revenue Wards and selection
shall not be made on the basis of Election Wards. Thus, he
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
HC-KAR
submits that Ward Nos.15 and 16 of Raibag Pattana
Panchayathi are Election Wards and the learned Single
Judge could not have placed reliance on the Election Wards
to set aside the appointment of the fourth respondent.
Thus, he prays for allowing the writ appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra A.
Mali for petitioner would submit that the application invited
is in respect of Ward No.16 of Raibag Pattana Panchayathi
and the Anganawadi Centre's name is Ambedkar Nagar.
When the notification is clear with regard to Ward No.16,
the fourth respondent, who is the resident of Ward No.15,
would not be entitled for consideration of her case for
appointment as Anganawadi worker. Learned counsel would
also invite attention of this Court to the Government Order
dated 23.09.2017, which lays down the guidelines for
appointment of Anganawadi workers, which would state
that preference shall be given to locals and further he
submits that when one or more Anganawadi centers are
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
HC-KAR
there in a village, the application shall be invited from the
residents of a particular ward/village. Thus, he prays for
dismissal of the writ appeal.
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.Sharad V. Magadum would submit that the applications
were invited for the Anganawadi Center at Ward No.16,
which is called as 'Ambedkar Nagar Anganawadi Center'.
Thus, he would pray for passing appropriate order.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on the perusal of the entire writ appeal
papers, the following points would arise for our
consideration:
a) Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in
setting aside the order of appointment dated
28.05.2019 of respondent No.4?
b) Whether the learned Single Judge is right in
directing the second respondent to recover the
salary paid to the fourth respondent?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
HC-KAR
10. The answer to the above points would be
affirmative and negative respectively, for the following
reasons:
By notification dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure-L),
applications were invited for the post of Anganawadi worker
at Raibag Pattana Panchayathi, Ward No.16, which is
named as 'Ambedkar Nagar Anganawadi Center'. The
Relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:
UÁæªÄÀ CAUÀ£ÀªÁr
².C.AiÉÆÃ. zÀÆgÀªÁt ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw/¥À.¥ÀA/¥ÀÅ..¸À/ CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÉÃAzÀz
æ À
PÀæ¸ÀA «ÄøÀ¯Áw DzÀåvÉ
ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå £À.¸À/ PÉÃAzÀz
æ À ºÉ¸ÀgÄÀ PÉÆÃqï
ªÁqïð £ÀA§gï, ºÉ¸ÀgÄÀ / ¸ÀASÉå
gÁAiÀĨsÁUÀ (¥ÀlÖt
08331- ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ)
CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgÀ
01 gÁAiÀĨsÁUÀ 01 ¥À.eÁ
225292 ªÁqïð £ÀA-16 £ÀUÀgÀ
The above makes it abundantly clear that the Anganawadi
center, though it is named as 'Ambedkar Nagar Anganawadi
Center', it is in Raibag Pattana Panchayathi, Ward No.16.
11. When the applications are invited specifically for
Ward No.16 of Raibag Pattana Panchayathi, only residents
of Ward No.16 of Raibag Pattana Panchayathi would be
eligible for consideration of their cases for appointment as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
HC-KAR
Anganawadi worker. The Government Order dated
23.09.2017, which lays down the guidelines for
appointment of Anganawadi worker requires preference to
be given to locals and if one or more Anganawadi center is
there in the village, then the applications to fill up the
Anganawadi worker shall be by indicating the Ward/village.
12. The contention of learned counsel for respondent
No.4/appellant herein that no application could be invited
indicating the Election Ward is unsustainable in the facts of
the present case since notification inviting application would
not indicate as to whether it is Election or Revenue ward.
The notification inviting application would only indicate that
it is for Ward No.16. In the said circumstances, there is no
merit in the contention of the learned counsel for
respondent No.4.
13. However, learned Single Judge is not justified in
directing recovery of salary paid to the fourth respondent on
the ground that her appointment is illegal. It is pertinent to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18353-DB
HC-KAR
note that, respondent No.4 on her appointment as
Anganawadi worker has carried on her duties and for the
duties performed by respondent No.4, she would be entitled
for salary. A person who has worked cannot be denied the
wages or salary.
14. In the said circumstances, the portion of the
order of the learned Single Judge under appeal, to the
extent of direction to recover salary paid to the respondent
No.4 is set aside. In all other respects, the learned Single
Judge's order is confirmed.
15. With the above, writ appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
NC, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20
