Dismissed

Channamma W/O Bhimappa Channammanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2018WA/100274/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by an appellant against the quashing of her appointment as an Anganawadi Worker. The appointment was set aside because the post was specifically reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, while the appellant belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. The Court held that the learned single judge was correct in law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Channamma W/O Bhimappa Channammanavar Vs the State of… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.100274/2018 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

CHANNAMMA W/O BHIMAPPA CHANNAMMANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O: TADASALUR VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN WELFARE, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SAUNDATTI,

¶17

¶18

TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

RENUKA W/O DEVDAS RAYAPPAGOL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: TASASLUR (TADASLUR) VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.06.2015 MADE IN W.P.NO.30782/2008 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND FURTHER DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Though there is a delay of 1105 days in filing the appeal, we have nevertheless heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits.

¶25

The legality and correctness of order dated 25.06.2015 passed in W.P.No.30782/2008 (S-RES) by learned single Judge of this Court is called in question in this appeal.

¶26

¶27

Briefly stated the facts are that

¶28

respondent No.4 herein had assailed the appointment of the appellant herein as an Anganawadi Worker at Tadasalur village. The fourth respondent herein contended in the writ petition that the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste. That she belongs to Scheduled Caste, but the Authorities had appointed the appellant herein, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe although the post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. In the circumstances, learned single Judge accepted the contention of the fourth respondent herein and set aside the appointment of the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, fourth respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. He drew our attention to Annexure-R1 appended to

¶30

¶31

statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent No.4-appellant herein to contend that as per Government Order dated 03.11.2007, the principles of policy of reservation would not strictly apply and this is evident from a reading of the proviso to Paragraph No.2 of the said Government Order. He contended that the appellant is a Scheduled Tribe candidate and therefore was entitled to be appointed to the said post as it was a reserved post. Learned counsel also drew our attention that even though the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate as per Annexure-B, the appointment of the appellant to the said post is not really illegal as the principles of reservation policy would not strictly apply and the same would depend upon the population of each village; that in Tadasalur village, the population of Scheduled Tribe is higher than that of the population of the Scheduled Caste and

¶32

¶33

therefore the appellant herein was entitled to be appointed as Anganawadi Worker.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant

¶35

contended although the population of Scheduled Tribe is higher than that of the Scheduled Caste population, the reservation of the post was erroneously made for a Scheduled Caste candidate as per Annexure-B. However, appellant has not assailed the said reservation of the post for Scheduled Caste candidate. In the circumstances, the appointing Authority was bound to fill up the said post only by the Scheduled Caste and not by the appellant who belongs to Scheduled Tribe.

¶36

We have perused Annexure-B, which is the table containing the reservation of the posts. Insofar as Tadasalur village is concerned, three posts of Anganawadi Workers have been reserved; one post has been reserved for Scheduled Caste and another post is for General merit and another

¶37

¶38

post of Tadalasur Halikitanda is reserved again for a Scheduled Caste candidate. The said reservation has not been assailed by the appellant herein. When the post was specifically reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, the appointment could not have been of a Scheduled Tribe candidate for the said post and thereby appointing the appellant herein. In the circumstances, learned single Judge was right in quashing the appointment of the appellant herein. We do not find any merit in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.

¶39

In view of dismissal of the appeal, all

¶40

applications stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

CLK

Channamma W/O Bhimappa Channammanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Channamma W/O Bhimappa Channammanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H M Dodda Jadaiah S/O Late H M Jadaiah Vs the State of Karnataka Reptd by Its Secretary

Mr.Mansoor Ali Vs the Statet of Karnataka

Sri Chennabasaveswaradeva of Ulvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. D.F. Sibgatullah Vs Abdul Razak Mulla

Gourish Gerunaik, Vs the Commodore

The Executive Engineer Vs Shankrappa S/O. Basavantappa Angadi