Allowed

Smt Chithra v. the Child Development Project Officer

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2012WP/15489/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A widow petitioner challenged her supersession in the appointment of an Anganawadi Teacher, alleging violation of state guidelines mandating preference for widows with SSLC qualifications. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the appointment order and directing a fresh selection process.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the appointment order was quashed; the respondent was directed to reconsider the matter within two months.

Smt Chithra Vs the Child Development Project Officer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.15489/2012(S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SMT CHITHRA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS W/O LATE. SHIVASWAMY R/O ALADAHALLI VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. ...PETITIONER

¶9

( BY SRI.B M MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.,)

¶10

AND :

¶11

1 THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE, HIG-1, 1ST CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR, HASSAN CITY, HASSAN-573 201.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE DISTRICT WOMEN'S AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, 9TH CROSS, K.R.PURAM, HASSAN-573 201.

¶13

3 STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEP. OF WOMEN'S AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

¶14

¶15

BANGALORE CITY, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶16

4 SMT. SUNEETHA I.V. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/O GOVERDHAN PRABHU, R/O ALADAHALLI VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 201. ...RESPONDENTS

¶17

( BY SMT. MANJULA KAMADOLLI, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI. G K NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADV., FOR R4)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DT.13.1.12, AS PER ANN-E ISSUED BY THE R2, IN FAVOUR OF THE R4, AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST, ARBITRARY & APPOSED TO THE GUIDELINES, QUALIFICATIONS & BASIS FOR SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI TEACHERS IN THE STATE PRESCRIBED BY THE R3 DT.10.6.11, AT ANN-A & ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner has called in question the order of appointment of

¶22

fourth respondent produced at Annexure-E dated 13.1.2012 issued by the respondent No.2.

¶23

Case of the petitioner is that, petitioner being a widow,

¶24

she had applied for the post of Anganawadi Teacher as per

¶25

¶26

application dated 1.12.2011 produced at Annexure-C in respect of Salagame Grama Panchayat, S.Aladahalli, Anganawadi Centre. However, ignoring the Government guidelines issued as per Annexure-A dated 10.6.2011, respondent No.2 has appointed the fourth respondent as Anganawadi teacher.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on condition No.4(aa) of annexure to Annexure-A and submitted that, in case

¶28

of applicant being a widow, her application should be considered in preference, if she is qualified with having passed or failed SSLC and is a resident of the village where Anganawadi Centre is situated and subject to age limitation. However, the second respondent on the basis of the report of the Selection Committee has issued an appointment in favour of respondent No.4, ignoring that the petitioner is a widow and she is having a qualification of SSLC and the guidelines issued in this regard.

¶29

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for

¶30

¶31

respondent No.4 submitted that, Annexure-A may be the Government Order, but annexure to Annexure-A is not the Government Order, as it is not in the name of Governor and it is signed by the Under Secretary. Even if the petitioner is aggrieved, she has to go before the higher authority in appeal.

¶32

Government Order at Annexure-A is in the name of

¶33

Governor. Annexure to Annexure-A is the guidelines attached to Annexure-A, which need not be in the name of Governor. As per

¶34

the terms and conditions of selection, in case a widow is an applicant and she is having qualification, her application should be preferred as against any other applications. The object behind giving preference to widow is to provide an opportunity to make her to stand on her own. However, the Selection Committee of the Anganawadi Teachers and respondent No.2, ignoring the guidelines have issued an order of appointment.

¶35

In my opinion, the order of appointment of respondent

¶36

¶37

No.4 is not sustainable.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the matter afresh by taking into consideration the guidelines issued in this regard and pass appropriate order as early as possible not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

KNM/-

Smt Chithra v. the Child Development Project Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chithra v. the Child Development Project Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vishalamma W/O Sri K N Bhaskar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Leelamani Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash Acharya Vs Udupi Power Corporation Ltd.

Prof S Sundarajan Vs Indian Institute of Management

Sree Udaya Bharathi Education Society Vs the Director

H K Sharadh Prasad, Vs State Bank of Mysore