Dismissed

Smt. Anitha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2021WA/62/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ appeal filed by Smt. Anitha challenging a single judge order that set aside an appointment of Smt. Radha V due to residency and disability discrepancies. The Court held no interference was required and confirmed the appellant can apply afresh.

What did the court decide?

Admission of writ appeal declined; Appellant free to apply for the post.

Smt. Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.62 OF 2021 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. ANITHA W/O SRINIVASA REDDY S.V., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT SEETHAREDDY HALLI VILLAGE KALATHURU PANCHAYATH SRINIVASAPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 138.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OFFICE CHIKKABALAPUR – 562 101.

¶16

THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI

¶17

¶18

TEACHERS FOR KORATAGERE TALUK REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE BAGEPALLI – 562 107. CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶19

THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI TEACHERS FOR KORATAGERE TALUK REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE BAGEPALLI – 562 107 CHIKKABALLAPUR.

¶20

SMT. RADHA V W/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT SEETHAREDDYHALLI VILLAGE YELADUR HOBLI SRINIVASAPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 138.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 R5 SERVED)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.39282/2018 AND DISMISS THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL.

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 20^th October 2020 passed in Writ Petition No.39282/2018 (S-RES) (SMT.RADHA.V vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS).

¶27

¶28

The facts of the case reveal that the respondentSmt.Radha.V has filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order dated 10.08.2018 which was relating to appointment of the present appellant as Anganawadi Karyakarte. The appointment was challenged on two grounds:

¶29

a) That the appointment has been issued contrary to the policy framed for appointment of Anganawadi Karyakarte relating to disabled persons. It was alleged that the appellant in the present writ appeal was having a disability of 80% whereas the policy provides for appointment of persons having less than 60% disability; b) Another ground raised by Smt.Radha, respondent in the writ appeal is that the certificate of residence was also not admissible as per the guidelines for the post of Anganawadi Karyakarte as a candidate is required to be a resident of the centre/village for which she applies for a period of six months earlier to the notification inviting application.

¶30

Paragraph Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

¶31

5. A perusal of the document placed before this Court would unmistakably answer the challenge against the appointee on both the counts. In the first ground, the 5^th respondent comes in marriage to Seethareddyhalli Village, Yelanduru Hobli,

¶32

¶33

Srinivasapura Taluk, only on 06.09.2015, in terms of the marriage invitation card at Annexure –G, and the notification for selection is issued on 09.11.2015, two months after the 5^th respondent coming in marriage to the centre where the appointment was sought to be made. Hence, the appointment of the 5^th respondent as Anganawadi Karyakarte of Seethareddyhalli Village, Yelanduru Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, is vitiated on account of violation of the aforesaid condition that a participant in the selection process should be a resident of centre/village to which an appointment is sought to be made at least six months prior to the notification.

¶34

6. The appointment is also vitiated on yet another ground. The disability of the 5^th respondent in terms of the certificate issued at Annexure – F which indicates her disability at 80% at the time of application. But at the time of scrutiny of the application in terms of Annexure –H, it depicts 60%. It becomes clear from Annexure –J which was the information furnished to the petitioner concerning the extent of disability of the 5^th respondent which the Taluk Panchayat says is at 80% by its communication dated: 10.08.2016.

¶35

7. The guidelines stipulate 60% or less to be the disability of a candidate that can be considered for appointment to the post of Anganawadi Karyakarte. In terms of the documents produced, it becomes clear that the 5^th respondent has a disability to the tune of 80%. Hence, on this ground as well, the appointment of the 5^th respondent stands vitiated.

¶36

¶37

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following order:

¶38

i) Writ petition is allowed

¶39

ii) The appointment of the 5^th respondent dated:10.08.2018- Annexure -L is set aside.

¶40

iii) The respondent-State Government is directed to notify the post afresh and consider the appointment of eligible persons in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

The documents on record makes it very clear that the

¶42

notification inviting applications was issued on 09.11.2015 and the present appellant was married to a person in the village in question only on 06.09.2015 and therefore, the condition in respect of participation in the selection process providing that he/she should be a resident of centre of the village to which an appointment is sought to be made at least six months prior to the notification was violated and in those circumstances, the learned single Judge has set aside the appointment. The other important aspect of the case is that at the time the application was submitted by the respondentSmt.Radha, she produced a certificate of disability as having 80% disability and later on, she filed another disability certificate showing 60% disability.

¶43

¶44

In the considered opinion of this Court, a candidate is required to submit all certificates on the date of submission of application and on that ground, the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition does not call for any interference. The admission is declined.

¶45

The learned single Judge has directed issuance of fresh notification. Therefore, it is made clear that the present appellant as well as respondent No.5 shall certainly be free to apply for the post in question. In case an application is made, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

bnv* ct-nn

Smt. Anitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anitha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Sri a K Ramesh

State of Karnataka Vs Prof K Lakshmanappa

Mani Rama Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M R Thilak Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

The Secretary, Vs R.P. Sushma