Karnataka High Court
Jayamma D/O. Kanteppa Valekara vs The Deputy Commissioner And on 24 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
WP No. 107976 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107976 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
JAYAMMA D/O. KANTEPPA VALEKARA,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O: AT BASARIHAL,
POST. GOURIPUR,
TQ: KANAKAGIRI, DIST. KOPPAL-583283.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOVINDAGOUDA D. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H.N.GULARADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
PRESIDENT OF SELECTION COMMITTEE
KOPPAL-583231.
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WOMEN
Location: High AND CHILD WELFARE AND
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, SELECTION COMMITTEE
Dharwad
KOPPAL-583231.
3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
OFFICER KANAKAGIRI,
TQ: KANAKGIRI,
DT: KOPPAL-581196.
4. SHRIDEVI D/O. BASAPPA TURAVIHAL,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O: AT BASARIHAL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
WP No. 107976 of 2025
HC-KAR
POST: GOURIPUR,
TQ: KANAKAGIRI, DIST: KOPPAL-583283.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
A. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER/ENDORSEMENT BEARING. NO.¸ÀA.CA.
PÁ.PÀ/CA.¸ï/£ÉÃ.¸ÀA/ªÀiÁUÀð¤Ã/PÀÄ/KU/2025-26/635 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H DATED 08.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 3 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
B. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED FINAL SELECTION LIST DATED 18.10.2025
VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO ISSUE BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
TO.3 IN RESPECT OF SERIAL NO 70 OF THE FINISH LIST
IN BASIRIHAL-3 ANGANAWADI CENTRE IN KANAKAGIRI
TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT, INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
C. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO CONSIDER THE
PETITIONER NAME IN THE FINAL SELECTION LIST VIDE
ANNEXURE-K AS PER THE SSLC MARKS VIDE ANNEXURE-
F.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
WP No. 107976 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
an endorsement dated 08.10.2025 by which the petitioner is
moved out of the final select list and the fourth respondent has
been roped in for the post of Anganwadi helper.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Govindagouda D. Patil
appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP Smt. Girija S.
Hiremath appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned
counsel Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde appearing for respondent No.4.
3. A Notification comes to be issued by the State for
recruitment of Anganwadi helper to all the anganvadi centres in
all the taluks at Koppal District. The petitioner and respondent
No. 4 applied to the said post to Basrihal Village. The
petitioner's name was found in the provisional select list but did
not find place in the final select list. The reason for the
petitioner's name not being found in the final select list is that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
HC-KAR
the petitioner had not uploaded certain documents which were
necessary for consideration of the appointment of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then
represents seeking appointment on various grounds that comes
to be rejected by the impugned endorsement. It is this that has
driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the qualification of the petitioner is 10th standard.
The petitioner has secured 531 marks. The selected candidate
now has secured 506 marks. The petitioner being more
meritorious, should not be denied employment on a curable
defect of not uploading the documents within the time frame.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.4, Sri. Neelendra Gunde, submits that respondent No.4 is a
graduate and more qualified than the petitioner. Therefore,
respondent No.4 should be offered appointment ignoring the
fact that the petitioner is more meritorious in the qualifying
examination i.e. SSLC. The learned counsel submits that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
HC-KAR
documents were not uploaded, therefore, the petitioner cannot
now contend that appointment should be offered.
7. The learned HCGP Smt. Girija Hiremath would
submit that in terms of the guidelines for appointment, all
documents need to be in place at the time of consideration of
the case of a particular candidate. Since the petitioner had not
uploaded the documents, the Selection Committee was left with
no choice but to choose the respondent No.4, the next
meritorious candidate. She would seek dismissal of the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
9. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The
issue in the lis is with regard to non-uploading of the documents
of the petitioner on the eve of the final select list being notified.
The documents admittedly were not uploaded but were
physically submitted. The non-uploading of the documents
would not take away the merit of the petitioner. The petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
HC-KAR
has secured 531 marks in the qualifying examination-SSLC.
Respondent No. 4, who is, though, over qualified to the post as
she is a graduate and is wanting appointment as an Anganvadi
helper has secured 506 marks in SSLC. Therefore, on a scale,
the petitioner is undoubtedly more meritorious than respondent
No.4. The qualifying examination being SSLC, it is that, that is
required to be considered by the Selection Committee and not
the over qualification of respondent No.4, who is a graduate.
10. The other issue is with regard to the uploading of the
documents. Non-uploading of the documents of a meritorious
candidate is undoubtedly a curable defect as is held by the Apex
Court in Ram Kumar Bijoria v. Delhi subordinate Services
Selection Board and Another1, which is followed by this Court
in Writ Petition No.102135/2023 disposed on 30.08.2023
concerning these very appointments, i.e. the posts of Anganvadi
helper/worker, which reads as follows:
12. The reference made by the counsel for the 5th
respondent to the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench is
distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the case at hand
without much ado, as the coordinate bench does not
(2016) 4 SCC 754
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
HC-KAR
consider the judgments rendered on the point by the
Apex Court. The Apex Court, in the case of Ram Kumar
Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
and Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 has
considered this aspect of curable defects being projected
as reasons for denial for appointment of candidates. The
Apex Court has held as follows:
"14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not
considering the decision rendered in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT
of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] . In that case, the learned
Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the
petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate
before the provisional selection list was published to claim
the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned
Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a
pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of
reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in
view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22
ATC 385] as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [Valsamma
Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 :
(1996) 33 ATC 713] . The learned Single Judge in Pushpa [Pushpa v.
Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] also considered
another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh [Tej Pal
Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR
(2000) 1 Del 298] , wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken
the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to
the SC and ST categories could not be rejected simply on account of
the late submission of caste certificate.
15. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in
Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3)
SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] has been
extracted in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 281] along with the speech delivered by Dr Ambedkar in
the Constituent Assembly and reads thus: (Pushpa case [Pushpa v.
Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , SCC OnLine Del
para 9)
"9. ... '251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in
public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the Draft
Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution,
and the conflicting claims of various communities for representation
in public administration, Dr Ambedkar emphatically declared that
reservation should be confined to "a minority of seats", lest the very
concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great
importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
HC-KAR
Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now
read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated:
"... firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly,
that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities
which have not so far had a 'proper look-in' so to say into the
administration. ... Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full
the demand of those communities who have not been so far
employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would
really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first
proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be
an equality of opportunity. ... Therefore the seats to be reserved, if
the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10,
[Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in
Indra Sawhney case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.] must be confined to
a minority of seats [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been
emphasised in Indra Sawhney case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.] . It is
then only that the first principle could find its place in the
Constitution and effective in operation. ... we have to safeguard two
things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the
same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so
far representation in the State...." [Constituent Assembly Debates,
Vol. 7, pp. 701-02 (1948-1949).]
These words embody the raison d'être of reservation and
its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by
the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior
inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against
various classes of people which have resulted in their social,
educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is
meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and
economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal
discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and
perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and
empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when
they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such
measure, insofar as one group is preferred to the exclusion of
another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the
achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal.' (Indra
Sawhney case [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp
(3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] ,
SCC pp. 433-34, para 251)"
16. In Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine
Del 281] , relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh [Tej Pal Singh v.
Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000) 1 Del
298] have also been extracted, which read thus: (Pushpa case
[Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , SCC
OnLine Del para 11)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
HC-KAR
"11. ... '15. The matter can be looked into from another angle
also. As per the advertisement dated 11-6-1999 issued by the Board,
vacancies are reserved for various categories including SC category.
Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for SC category,
the requirement is that a person should belong to SC category. If a
person is SC he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category
because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate
issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of
fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is
to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate
that he belongs to SC category and act thereon by giving the benefit
to such candidate for his belonging to SC category. It is not that
petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that
acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the
certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate
dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no
rationale objective sought to be achieved.
16. While taking a particular view in such matters one has
to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST
categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in
Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions
authorising the Government to make special provisions for
the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4),
therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to
make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and
economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society.
The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the
Preamble and elongated in the fundamental rights and
directive principles of the Constitution, in particular Articles
14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the
life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the
society meaningful.' (Tej Pal Singh case [Tej Pal Singh v.
Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000)
1 Del 298] , SCC OnLine Del paras 15-16)"
(Emphasis supplied)
13. The Apex Court following the judgment of the Delhi
High Court in the case of Gyaninder and others v. Shri
Surender Singh, S.O. and others reported in (2009) SCC
online Delhi 181 holds that such acts of authorities denying
the candidature on curable defects should not be permitted
to be perpetuated. Therefore, the petition deserves to
succeed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16099
HC-KAR
11. In the light of the aforesaid twin circumstance, the
petition deserves to succeed. The impugned endorsement to be
obliterated.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned
endorsement dated 08.10.2025 stands
quashed.
ii. The petitioner shall be offered employment as
Aanganvadi helper, if she would meet every
other criteria.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Kmv
CT:ANB
