Dismissed

Chandramma W/O. Fakkirappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2022WP/77964/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's service as an Anganawadi worker in an unauthorized center. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the termination was legal as the petitioner failed to substantiate her appointment in an authorized center.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed without interference with the impugned order discontinuing the petitioner's service.

Chandramma W/O. Fakkirappa Vs the State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 77964 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 77964 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDRAMMA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI WORKER R/O. GUNDUR VILLAGE TQ: GANGAVATHI DIST: KOPPAL

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

DEPT. WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT. WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL

¶16

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEPT. WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT PASSED THE ORDER DATED 23/11/2012 IN SL. NO.YANIKO/MAMA A.E. / SHE AYOGAM/ A.NE. STHAGITH / 1213/470 VIDE ANENXURE-G AND ETC.

¶20

¶21

WP No. 77964 of 2013

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Anganawadi worker by the 2^nd respondent in Gundur Village, Gangavathi Taluk. When things stood thus, the 3^rd respondent issued the communication dated 28.06.2012 to furnish details of the 27 Anganawadi workers who are appointed to unauthorized centers. Against which the petitioner along with others filed W.P. No.70934-70938/2012 and connected writ petitions. This Court by order dated 19.10.2012 directed the respondents herein to issue notice to the petitioner and provide her an opportunity to putforth her case and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 23.11.2012 to discontinue the service of the petitioner stating that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganawadi worker in an unauthorized center. Against which the present petition is filed.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed by following due

¶26

¶27

WP No. 77964 of 2013

¶28

process of law and as such, the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent discontinuing the service of the petitioner as Anganawadi worker is not sustainable in law.

¶29

The learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganawadi worker in an unauthorized centre and as such, the 2^nd respondent has rightly discontinued the service of the petitioner and the same does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶31

learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Perusal of the order dated 02.08.2010 indicates that, after inviting applications from the eligible candidates, the petitioner was appointed as Anganawadi worker in Gundur village. The respondent No.2, after conducting enquiry, held that the petitioner was appointed as Anganawadi worker in an unauthorized centre. The petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate her claim that she was appointed as an Anganawadi Worker in an authorized centre. In the absence of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent

¶33

¶34

WP No. 77964 of 2013

¶35

No.2 cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or

¶36

arbitrariness. Accordingly, the petition sands dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RSH,KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92

Chandramma W/O. Fakkirappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramma W/O. Fakkirappa 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

Kuppam Ramaiyer Sridhara Murthi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

R Surendra Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmi. C. Shekhar Vs the Commissioner

Tarunkumar S/O Kenchappa Malagali Vs the Secretary (Pri and Seco.)

Shri.Suryakant S/O Gopall Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Annapurna W/O Chennappa Mali @ Balikai Vs Shri.Chennappa S/O Kallappa Mali @ Balikari