Allowed

Smt. Umamaheshwari W/O Basanagouda Patil, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jan 2019WA/100227/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal filed by an Anganawadi worker challenging the single judge's order quashing her appointment based on doubts about her residence certificate. The High Court held the Tahsildar's certificate valid and restored the appointment.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.02.2018 quashing the appointment is set aside. The appointment order dated 01.08.2017 is restored. Parties to bear their own costs.

Smt. Umamaheshwari W/O Basanagouda Patil, Vs the… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019

¶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.100227/2018 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SMT. UMAMAHESHWARI W/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: C/O: CHANDRAKANTAYYA BASAYYA HIREMATH, WARD N:19, KOTTIGERI ONI, BANKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

¶11

..... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S.HALLIKERI, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

THE MEMBER SECRETARY,

¶17

¶18

WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

¶19

SMT. GANGAVVA W/O GURUSIDDAPPA ICHANGI (BEFORE MARRIAGE GANGAMMA SHIVAPPA ULLAGADDI) AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/AT: KOTAGERI, NEAR POLICE STATION, BANGAKAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.

¶20

..... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1-R3 SRI MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADV. FOR R-4)

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:06.02.2018 PASSED IN W.P.NO.108933/2017 (S-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.108933/2017 (S-RES) AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Though this appeal is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel on both the sides, it is heard finally.

¶26

The appellant herein was respondent No.4 in W.P.No.108933/2017. The appellant has

¶27

¶28

assailed the order dated 06.02.2018 passed in the said writ petition. By the said order, learned Single Judge has quashed the appointment of the appellant as an Anganawadi worker dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure-P to the writ petition) and has directed the official respondents to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity to both the parties within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Being aggrieved by setting aside her appointment as Anganawadi worker, this appeal is preferred by the appellant.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

¶30

Briefly stated the facts are that the second respondent herein issued a notification

¶31

¶32

dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure-C to the writ

¶33

petition) for recruitment of Anganawadi worker to Ward No.19, Bankapur Town. The appellant herein as well as the fourth respondent applied to the said post. The recruitment notification inter alia, prescribed a condition that the candidate should be a resident of the Ward in which the Anganawadi centre is located. Thereafter, the provisional selection list was drawn and in the said provisional selection list, appellant’s name was found on the ground that she is a widow. The fourth respondent/writ petitioner submitted her objection to the provisional selection list at Annexure-N, contending that the appellant herein had no proof of her residence and that she was not a resident of Ward No.19. The second respondent rejected the objections filed by the writ petitioner/fourth respondent herein and being aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed. Learned Single Judge after hearing respective parties has

¶34

¶35

observed that as per the guidelines and the recruitment notification even for considering a candidate in widow’s quota, the residential qualification must be fulfilled inasmuch as the widow must be a resident of the Ward in respect of which the recruitment is being made. The challenge to the issuance of the certificate by the Tahsildar was considered by the learned Single Judge and it was held that the certificate issued in favour of the appellant herein was not a conclusive proof of the facts stated therein. Learned Single Judge further cast a doubt on the said certificate and therefore set aside the appointment of the appellant and directed reconsideration of the matter after affording an opportunity to both the parties. Being aggrieved by the said order, fourth respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal.

¶36

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for the

¶38

appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the material on record.

¶39

During the course of arguments, appellant’s counsel has drawn our attention to the guidelines issued through Government Order dated 19.04.2014, under which in guideline IV, the manner in which a widow has to be selected has been stated. Guideline IV (1) and (2) are of relevance and the same read as under:

¶40

iV) «zs ªÀ AiÉ ÄgÀ DAiÀ ÄÌ:É -

¶41

1. CAUÀ£ÀqÁr PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð/¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ «zsÀªÉAiÀÄgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÁUÀ EvÀgÀ J¯Áè CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀzÉ £ÉÃgÀªÁr «zsÀªÉAiÀÄgÀ£ÉßÃ DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. DzÀgÉ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. GwÛÃtð, ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAiÉÆÃ«ÄwAiÉÆ¼ÀVgÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ. Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ «zsÀªÉAiÀiÁzÀ°è ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀÄªÀAw®è.

¶42

1. «zsÀªÉAiÀÄgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ J°è ªÁ¸À«gÀÄªÀÅzÁV, ªÁ¸À¸ÀÜ¼À zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À®è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ, D ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀ£ÉßÃ CªÀgÀ ªÁ¸À¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

¶43

¶44

Further learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn our attention to Government Order dated 03.12.2011, under which the powers of Grade-II Tahasildar are mentioned and in that it is stated that a Grade-II Tahsildar has power to issue a residence certificate. Appellant’s counsel therefore contended that the certificate produced by the appellant showing her residence in Bankapur, Ward No.19 was in accordance with the legibility criteria regarding residence sought in the recruitment notification and so long as the said certificate is not cancelled and is valid appointment made on the basis of the said certificate could not have been set aside. That the learned Single Judge was not right in setting aside appellant’s appointment and directing the reconsideration of the matter.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for

¶46

respondent No.4 submitted that the residence

¶47

¶48

certificate issued in favour of the appellant was challenged by the fourth respondent before the Assistant Commissioner and a direction was issued on 13.09.2017 directing the Tahsildar to reconsider the said certificate and therefore appointment on the said certificate could not have been made by the second respondent herein. He submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is just and proper and there is no merit in the writ appeal.

¶49

Learned Additional Government

¶50

Advocate appearing for the official respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that with reference to records perused by her that the appointment of the appellant was in accordance with law and that appropriate orders may be made in this appeal.

¶51

By way or reply, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 13.09.2017 at Annexure-S does not set aside or cancel the

¶52

¶53

certificate of residence issued in favour of the appellant by the Tahsildar. It is only a direction issued to the Tahsildar to reconsider the said certificate and till date there has been no cancellation or set aside of the residence certificate which states that appellant is a residence of Bankapur in respect of which place of recruitment notification for the post of Anganawadi Worker took place and the appellant was appointment. In the circumstances, he submits that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge may be set aside and Annexure-P be restored and given effect to.

¶54

The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration. We have perused the Government Order dated 03.12.2011 which categorically states that GradeII Tahsildar has jurisdiction to issue residence certificate. Appellant has produced her residence

¶55

¶56

certificate as per Annexure-D stating that she is a resident of Bankapur (Ward No.19). Even under the guidelines which we have referred to above, it is stated that if the widow submits that she is a resident of a particular place, then the same may be accepted as such. In the circumstances, when the appointing authority on the basis of the certificate produced by the appellant, appointed the appellant to the post of Anganawadi worker in respect of Ward No.19, Bankapur by giving preference to her candidature, since she is a widow, the same could not have been set aside by the learned Single Judge by doubting the authenticity of the certificate issued by the Tahasildar.

¶57

As already noted, the jurisdiction and power to issue said certificate is vested with the Tahasildar. If for any other reason, the certificate is invalid or having no validity in the eye of law,

¶58

¶59

then it is for the fourth respondent herein to establish the same before the competent authority. So long there is no cancellation of the residence certificate in favour of the appellant herein, learned Single Judge could not have doubted the same and as a result, set aside the appellant’s appointment. In the result, order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Annexure-P, dated 01.08.2017 appointing the appellant as Anganawadi worker of Ward No.19 of Bankapur Town is restored. Writ appeal is allowed.

¶60

In view of restoration of the appellant’s appointment, she is at liberty to take charge of the said post.

¶61

It is needless to say that if any representation is made by her for the purpose of joining in the said post, the respondent-authorities shall take immediate steps to permit her to join the duty as Anganawadi worker.

¶62

¶63

14. In view of the appeal being disposed off,

¶64

I.A.No.2/2018 stands disposed off.

¶65

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Naa

Smt. Umamaheshwari W/O Basanagouda Patil, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Umamaheshwari W/O Basanagouda Patil, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Yallawwa W/O Kariyappa Kondikoppa, Vs Imtiyaz Ahmed

Dadagouda Balagouda Patil Vs Kusuma W/O.Paris Mirje

Shivabasappa Jangannavar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt. Gangavva W/O Gurusiddappa Ichangi Vs the State of Karnataka

Jakkanachari S/O Basavachari Kammara Vs the State R/by Its Principal Secretary

Shivanagouda S/O Fakiragouda Shambhanagoudar Vs the State of Karnataka