Karnataka High Court
Premala vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
WA No. 200116 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200116 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PREMALA W/O LATE TUKARAM
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI ASSISTANT
TADPALLI VILLAGE TQ: DIST: BIDAR - 585403.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VARUN PATIL, ADV. FOR
SRI SHIVANAND PATIL & SANDEEP VIJAY KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
by RAMESH WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH VIDHANDA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF WOMEN & CHILD
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BIDAR-585101.
3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT
AND PLANNING OFFICER
TQ: BIDAR,
DIST: BIDAR-585101.
4. THE DY. COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
WA No. 200116 of 2023
5. SMT. SHILPARANI W/O LATE RAMDAS
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O TADAPALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: BIDAR-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI HALAPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 17.08.2023.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2023 passed in
W.P.No.202122/2022 (S-RES), wherein the writ petition
filed by the respondent No.5 herein was allowed. The
respondent-authorities were directed to reinstate
respondent No.5 into the post of Anganawadi helper of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
Tadapalli Village, Anganawadi Centre-2, Bidar Taluk and
District within a period of two weeks.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that, the respondent No.5 filed the writ petition seeking
prayer to issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent
herein, on the ground that the 5th respondent has secured
515 marks out of 625, whereas the appellant has secured
495 marks out of 600 in 9th standard examination and she
meets the requirement of clause 4(3) of the Government
Order dated 19.04.2014. The learned Single Judge taking
note of the material available on record and the affidavit of
the officer that the 5th respondent has secured 515 marks
out of 625 marks and the appellant has scored 495 marks
out of 625 marks and come to conclusion that the
withdrawal of the appointment of the 5th respondent is bad
in law and proceeded to quash the same. Being aggrieved
by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present
appeal is filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
3. Sri. Varun Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has
committed error in quashing the impugned order dated
18.07.2022 issued by 2nd respondent without appreciating
the other aspects of the case. It is submitted that the
appellant has raised objections to the appointment of 5th
respondent as Anganawadi worker on the ground that the
application submitted by the 5th respondent at Annexure-B
indicates that she had obtained the residential certificate
on 30.07.2021. However, actual certificate of residence
found at Annexure-F is dated 17.08.2021, which is in clear
violation of the Government Order dated 19.04.2014 and
the guidelines issued for the appointment of Anganawadi
workers. Admittedly, the residential certificate is issued
subsequent to the date of application. Hence, the 5th
respondent is not eligible to be considered for appointment
as Anganawadi worker. It is further submitted that, the
authority has withdrawn her appointment vide order dated
18.07.2022 only on the ground of marks secured by the
candidate without considering other objections raised by
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
the appellant. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by
setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge by
permitting the appellant to continue in the said post.
4. Per contra, Sri. Huleppa Heroor, learned
counsel for the 5th respondent supports the order of the
learned Single Judge and submits that the 2nd respondent
withdrew the appointment of 5th respondent as Angawadi
worker after the period of 9 months of her appointment
and without providing any opportunity of hearing to her.
It is submitted that the affidavit filed by the Government
clearly indicate that the 5th respondent is more meritorious
than the appellant. Hence, the learned Single Judge has
come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated
18.07.2022 is liable to be quashed and further directed to
reinstate the 5th respondent to the said post. Hence, the
order under challenge does not call for any interference
and he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
5. Sri. Mallikarjun Basareddy, learned Government
Advocate fairly submits that the respondent No.5 is more
meritorious than the appellant herein and to support the
said contention he has filed the affidavit of Sri. Prakasha
S., Under Secretary to the Government, School Education
and Literacy (Department), Secondary (Section)
Government of Karnataka. It is submitted that the
appellant though raised the objection to the appointment
of 5th respondent as Anganawadi worker on different
grounds before the authority, the authority has taken note
of the secured marks and passed an order dated
18.07.2022 at Annexure-M. Hence, it would be appropriate
to issue directions to the respondent-authorities to
reconsider the appointment of Anganawadi worker to
Tadapalli Village, Anganawadi Centre-2, Bidar Taluk and
District afresh as per the prevailing guidelines.
6. We have heard the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent
No.5 and the learned Government Advocate and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
meticulously perused the material available on record. We
have given our anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced and the material available on record.
7. The pleading and evidence on record indicate
that the 5th respondent filed an application for the post of
Anganawadi helper at Tadapalli Village, Anganawadi
Centre-2, Bidar Taluk and District. The 5th respondent was
issued with an appointment order dated 25.10.2021 at
Annexure-G by the 2nd respondent, she joined duties as
Anganawadi worker on 27.10.2021. Later, the 2nd
respondent issued order dated 18.07.2022 withdrawing
the appointment order of 5th respondent as Anganawadi
helper on the ground that the selection committee has
taken decision to withdraw her appointment. The order
dated 18.07.2022 was impugned before the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the
affidavit filed by the competent officer that the 5th
respondent has scored 515 marks out of 625 marks and
the appellant has scored 495 marks out of 625 marks in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
the 9th standard examination and proceeded to quash the
order dated 18.07.2022 and further directed to reinstate
the 5th respondent to the post of Anganawadi helper.
8. The affidavit filed by Sri. Prakasha S., dated
03.03.2025 in these proceedings also indicate that the 5th
respondent has scored 515 marks out of 625 marks and
the appellant has scored 495 marks out of 625 marks in
9th standard examination. As per the guidelines, the 5th
respondent is more meritorious and secured more marks
than the appellant in the qualifying examination i.e., 9th
standard. However, the appellant has specifically raised
an objection before the authority that the application of
the 5th respondent is liable to be rejected on the ground
that the same is in violation of the guidelines issued by the
respondents for appointment of Anganawadi helper. In
other words, the appellant is contending that the 5th
respondent in her application at Annexure-B indicated the
date of obtaining the residential certificate as 30.07.2021.
However, the residential certificate at Annexure-F is dated
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
17.08.2021 which is subsequent to the date of application
of the 5th respondent and the authority without
considering this aspect has considered inter-se merit of
marks in 9th standard examination and passed an order
dated 18.07.2022.
9. We have also perused the grounds of appeal
and the objection filed before the authority. The appellant
has taken specific ground in the appeal that the 5th
respondent is not eligible to be appointed as Anganawadi
helper as her residential certificate is subsequently
obtained and this aspect is required to be considered by
the competent authority, who selects the Anganawadi
helper.
10. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered view that, insofar as passing of the order dated
18.07.2022 has been rightly interfered by the learned
Single Judge on the ground of inter-se merit between the
appellant and the 5th respondent. However, the authority
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
is required to reconsider whether that the application of
the 5th respondent is in accordance with guidelines in
force. In view of the specific objections of the appellant
with regard to the residential certificate of the 5th
respondent, the interest of the justice would be met, if
respondents No. 2 to 4 are directed to reconsider the
applications of the appellant and the 5th respondent to the
post of Anganawadi helper at Tadapalli Village,
Anganawadi Centre-2, Bidar Taluk and District in
accordance with law and as per the guidelines. Hence, we
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The order of the learned Single Judge dated
17.08.2023 passed in WP.No.202122/2022 is
upheld insofar as the quashing of the impugned
order dated 18.07.2022 at Annexure-M. Further
we direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1425-DB
reconsider the applications of the appellant and
respondent No.5 afresh in accordance with law
keeping in mind the observations made supra
and pass appropriate orders within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
iii) The appellant is permitted to continue to work
as Anganawadi helper at Tadapalli Village,
Anganawadi Centre-2, Bidar Taluk and District,
till the authority takes decision in the matter as
directed.
iv) No orders to cost.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
MCR
CT: PS
