This writ appeal challenged an order directing an enquiry into the residential eligibility of a candidate rejected from an Anganawadi worker post. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the ground of perversity, and extended the time for completing the enquiry.
The time for completing the enquiry was extended by six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.664 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT.SHILPA WIFE OF R.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF PATHABAGEPALLI VILLAGE BAGEPALLI TALUK
CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-578 425.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI:GURUDHATTA K., ADVOCATE (PH))
AND:
2
THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IS ACTUALLY RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.109 WARD NO.3, BAGEPALLI TOWN BAGEPALLI TALUK CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-578 425.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1-R3 (PH))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.13840 OF 2018 DATED 02/11/2020 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The legality and correctness of order dated 02/11/2020 passed in Writ Petition No.13840 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge is called in question in this intracourt writ appeal.
3
No.4 herein filed the writ petition for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 23/03/2018 issued by respondent No.3 selecting the appellant herein as an Anganawadi worker.
Notification dated 22/12/2016 calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up the vacant post of Anganawadi workers in different villages, including Pathabagepalli village, where respondent No.4 resides. Both the appellant and respondent No.4 had applied for the post of Anganawadi worker and submitted necessary documents.
On scrutinizing the eligibility of the candidates who had applied for the post, the provisional select list was notified. As per the provisional select list, the appellant herein was provisionally selected for the post which was challenged by respondent No.4 by filing Writ Petition No.10563 of 2018 which came to be dismissed by order dated 13/03/2018. However, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed to consider
4
the objections raised by respondent No.4 to the provisional select list and thereafter to notify the final select list. It is stated that after the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.10563 of 2018, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 considered the objection and again selected the appellant to the post of Anganawadi worker to Pathabagepalli village and issued the appointment order dated 23/03/2018 which was called in question by respondent No.4 by filing the writ petition out of which this appeal arises.
herein before the learned Single Judge that the appellant herein was less meritorious, having only 47.68% marks, whereas respondent No.4 herein had secured 67.78% marks in the qualifying SSLC examination. Respondent No.4 is also older to the appellant herein which facts were not taken into consideration by respondent Nos.1 to 3, while selecting the appellant to the post of Anganawadi worker. Thus, the appellant being less meritorious, respondent No.4 herein, as petitioner in the writ petition,
5
sought for quashing of the order appointing the appellant herein to the post of Anganawadi worker.
6
herein is the resident of Pathabagepalli village, the State would consider issuing an appointment order in her favour, if she is qualified in all other respects. Otherwise, the appointment order dated 23/03/2018 appointing the appellant herein shall be given effect to. It is also directed that the aforesaid process shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, respondent No.4 in the writ petition has preferred this appeal.
7
respondent No.4 is said to have conducted the enquiry and proceeded to publish the final list appointing respondent No.4 herein which is against the Notification calling for applications for appointment to the said post. Therefore, appellant has sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the final select list and appointing respondent No.4 herein to the post of Anganawadi worker.
8
residential status before finalizing the list for appointment for the concerned post. The learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter and has rightly disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to hold an enquiry after hearing both the parties to the lis and after such enquiry, if it is found that respondent No.4 herein is the resident of Pathabagepalli village which is one of the qualifications required under the Notification, she may be considered for appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker. No illegality or perversity is found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
find any merit in the appeal. Appeal is hence, dismissed.
At this stage, learned Additional Government Advocate seeks extension of time for completion of enquiry as the learned Single Judge has granted three months time
9
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order.
In the circumstances, we extend the time by six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The appointing authority to complete the enquiry before that date and to issue appointment order in accordance with the report of the enquiry and in accordance with law.
In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, IA.1 of 2020
filed for stay stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality or perversity in the Single Judge's order directing an enquiry regarding the residential status of the candidate before finalizing the appointment.
Whether the writ appeal filed by the unsuccessful candidate to quash the appointment is meritorious.
Whether the time granted for completion of the enquiry requires extension.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shilpa
The Deputy Commissioner Chikkaballapur District
The Deputy Director of Women and Child Development
The Child Development Project Officer Bagepalli
V. Varalakshmi
B.V. Nagarathna
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
