Partly allowed

K.L.Ranjitha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2021WA/544/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge, faced with a conflicting notification requiring a recent domicile certificate, appointed the successful appellant to the post of Anganawadi worker despite her lack of compliance. The High Court refused monetary benefits for her period of unappointment but upheld her progression in seniority for retirement purposes. The selection process was remanded.

What did the court decide?

50% salary for the period of unappointment is denied; salary notional fixation and service continuity for retirement benefits are granted, and selection is remanded.

K.L.Ranjitha Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.544 OF 2020 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

K.L.RANJITHA DAUGHTER OF LOKESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT KURUDI VILLAGE KITHUR POST DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 512.

¶11

... APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI:SANTHOSH R NELKUDRI, ADVOCATE (PH))

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. BY THE SECRETARY.

¶15

THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ANGANAWADI WORKER AND HELPER OFFICE OF THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT

¶16

¶17

PROJECT OFFICE VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE-577 512.

¶18

REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT KUVEMPU NAGAR BEHIND BAPUJI HIGH SCHOOL DAVANAGERE-577 512.

¶20

SHRUTHI B WIFE OF THIPPESWAMY J.S. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS KURUDI VILLAGE KITHUR POST DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 512.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI:C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 (PH); SMT: RASHMI K., ADVOCATE FOR

¶23

SRI: M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 (VC))

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/10/2020 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.22670 OF 2015 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND THE SAID WRIT PETITION BE DISMISSED BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Though this appeal is listed to consider IA.3 of 2020 which has been filed by respondent No.4 seeking vacating of the interim order dated 23/11/2020, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally.

¶29

The legality and correctness of the order dated 15/10/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.22670 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge of this Court is called in question in this intra-court appeal.

¶30

Respondent No.2, being the Selection Committee, issued Notification dated 26/07/2014 (Annexure-A) inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Anganawadi worker. The Notification was issued in conformity with the guidelines dated 19/04/2014 (Annexure-B). In response to the said Notification, writ petitioner and respondent No.4 submitted their applications. Respondent No.2 rejected the application submitted by respondent No.4 on the ground that the domicile certificate submitted by her was not within six

¶31

¶32

months from the date fixed for submitting the application, which is one of the requirements to be eligible for appointment to the post. The provisional selection list was published on 27/11/2014 (Annexure-F) selecting the petitioner for the post as per the proceedings of the Committee dated 20/11/2014 (Annexure-E). Respondent No.4 submitted her objection dated 29/11/2014 (Annexure-G) to the provisional selection list on the ground that even according to the proceedings of the Committee, she is more meritorious than the petitioner and further the domicile certificate submitted by her is valid for a period of one year. Therefore, she had to be considered for the post of Anganawadi worker by revising the provisional select list.

¶33

Respondent No.3 considered the objection filed by respondent No.4 and published the final select list (Annexure-H) appointing respondent No.4 to the post of Anganawadi worker, which was under challenge by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶34

¶35

5. Learned Single Judge considering the

¶36

contention of both the parties allowed the writ petition by quashing Annexure-H and directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to re-consider petitioner’s selection and appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker, Kurudi Anganawadi Centre from the date of appointment of respondent No.4. It is also ordered that the petitioner is also entitled to 50% of the salary during the period from 13/02/2015 till the date of appointment to the post and she is also entitled to all service benefits including seniority and other benefits. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been directed to pay 50% of the salary to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order. The same is called in question by respondent No.4 by preferring this appeal.

¶37

We have heard Sri.Santhosh R.Nelkudri, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.C.N.Mahadeshwaran, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt.K.Rashmi, learned counsel for

¶38

¶39

Sri.M.Subramanaya Bhat, for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

¶40

As per Notification (Annexure-A), one of the requirements is, the applicant to the post of Anganawadi worker shall be a resident of the village concerned and shall produce domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar within six months from the date fixed for submitting the application. Admittedly, the appellant herein submitted the Domicile Certificate (Annexure-D), which was issued by the Tahsildar on 09/01/2014. As per the Notification (Annexure-A), the last date for submitting the application was 27/08/2014. Therefore, it is clear that Annexure-D submitted by respondent No.4 was beyond the period of six months from the date fixed for submitting the application and it clearly violates one of the conditions of eligibility for the post.

¶41

The learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunwar Pal Singh (Dead) by LRs Vs State of U.P. and others [(2007) 5

¶42

¶43

SCC 85] , to hold that when the Notification prescribes specific condition for the eligibility of the candidate to submit the application, the same cannot be waived or relaxed subsequently. The finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard cannot be held to be erroneous. There is absolutely no reason as to why one of the conditions imposed in the Notification calling for the application was subsequently relaxed while publishing selection list selecting the appellant herein for the post concerned. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that Domicile Certificate (Annexure-D) issued by the Tahsildar dated 09/01/2014 is valid for a period of one year cannot be a reason for either waiving or relaxing the condition imposed in the Notification (Annexure-A). Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition.

¶44

However, the writ petitioner is held to be

¶45

entitled for 50% of salary for the period from 13/02/2015

¶46

¶47

till the date of appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker and for all the service benefits including the seniority and other benefits. Admittedly, the petitioner was neither appointed nor worked as Anganawadi worker. On the other hand, the appellant herein was appointed for the said post with effect from 13/02/2015. Therefore, entitlement of the petitioner for 50% of the salary from the date of appointment of the appellant herein to the post cannot be justified. Applying the principle of ‘no work no pay’, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefit for the period from 13/02/2015 till the date of her appointment to the post. However, she is entitled for notional fixation of her salary with effect from 13/02/2015 with continuity of service from the said date which shall be considered for the purpose of her retirement benefits.

¶48

Under the circumstances, writ appeal is allowed in part and disposed in the following manner:

¶49

¶50

Reconsideration of selection and appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker, Kurudi Anganawadi Centre, from the date of appointment of respondent No.4 as ordered by the learned Single Judge is sustained. She is deemed to be appointed from 13/02/2015.

¶51

Respondent No.4 shall not be entitled to 50% of the salary from the period from 13/02/2015 till the date of her appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker. However, respondent No.4 shall be entitled to notional fixation of her salary with effect from 13/02/2015 and continuity of service from the said date which shall be considered for the purpose of her retirement benefits.

¶52

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall appoint respondent No.4 in place of the appellant herein within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶53

Parties to bear their respective costs.

¶54

¶55

In view of the disposal of the appeal, IA No.3 of

¶56

2020 is allowed and disposed.

¶57

IA Nos.1 of 2020 and 2 of 2020 stand disposed.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

*bgn/-

K.L.Ranjitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.L.Ranjitha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Megashree G N Vs Harshath S

Sri. a. C. Manohar Vs Smt. S. Latha

Sri D Nagarjuna Vs Sri B Gurumurthy

Sri Uday Kumar C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ningappa P. Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H R Ramesh Vs M/S Janapada Seva Trust