Partly allowed

Reshma W/O Razaksab Mulimani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2023WA/100299/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed two writ appeals. It set aside the Single Judge's order imposing Rs. 2,00,000 costs and modified the order on the selection list to direct a fresh proceedings with opportunities to parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order on costs set aside; selection list setting aside order modified to direct fresh selection with notice to parties within two months.

Reshma W/O Razaksab Mulimani Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100207 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶11

C/W

¶12

WRIT APPEAL NO. 100299 OF 2023

¶13

IN WA NO. 100207 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,

¶15

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶17

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.16 11:01:36 +0530

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL 583231.

¶19

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER/MEMBER, SECRETARY, ANGANWADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, KUSTAGI, TQ: KUSTAGI 583277, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SMT. DYAMAKKA W/O. KALAKAPPA KUNTOJI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: YALABUNACHI (JANATHA PLOT),

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶26

TQ : KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 583277.

¶27

SMT. RESHAMA W/O. RAZAKSAB MULIMANI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: YALABUNACHI (JANATHA PLOT), TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 583277.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) (BY SRI D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.100446/2015 (S-RES).

¶31

IN W.A.NO.100299 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

¶32

RESHMA W/O. RAZAKSAB MULIMANI, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: YALABUNACHI (JANATA PLOT), TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL

¶33

…APPELLANT

¶34

(BY SRI D. L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶37

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL.

¶38

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, OFFICER/MEMBER SECRETARY, ANGANAWADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, KUSTAGI, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶41

DYMAKKA W/O. KALAKAPPA KUNTOJI,

¶42

AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC:NIL, RESIDENT OF YALABUNACHI (JANATA PLOT), TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3) (BY SRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶45

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.100446/2015 (S-RE), DATED 24-022023 AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶46

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Both these intra Court appeals arise out of the impugned order dated 24.01.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 100446/2015(S-RES).

¶49

The said petition was preferred by Smt Dyamakka-writ petitioner assailing the impugned selection list dated 26.11.2014, which did not include the name of writ petition, but included the name of respondent No.4-Smt. Reshma in the writ petition.

¶50

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶51

Heard Sri D.L.Ladkhan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Praveen Uppar learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State as well as Sri H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.4.

¶52

The material on record discloses that the writ petitioner-Smt Dyamakka preferred the aforesaid petition seeking quashing of the final selection list dated 26.11.2014 on the ground that though her name was found in the provisional selection list and despite the writ petitioner having secured 72.48% marks in the qualifying S.S.L.C. as against 58.72% secured by respondent No.4-Smt.Reshma in the said examination as required in the selection notification dated 10.06.2011 the petitioner was not selected, while respondent No.4 was selected by respondent Nos.1 to 3. It was also contended that the petitioner satisfied by the qualifications / eligibility criteria including being resident of Ward No.3 of Yelabunachi Village and consequently, respondent Nos.1 to 3/State were not justified in selecting the 4^th respondent in the writ petition.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶55

The aforesaid respondent No.4-Smt Reshma contested the petition inter alia contending that firstly, the writ petitioner was not the resident of Yelabunachi village at all and she was not entitled to be selected. Secondly, it was contended that the Residence Certificate issued to the writ petitioner had been signed by the Deputy Tahashildar and not by the Tahashildar as required in the notification dated 10.06.2011 and as such, the said Residence Certificate could not have been relied upon by the writ petitioner. Thirdly, it was contended that as per the joint survey conducted by the State in the presence of writ petitioner and respondent No.4, it was found that the writ petitioner was not the resident of Ward No.3 of Yelabunachi village and on this ground also, respondent/State was fully justified in not including the name of writ petitioner in the selection list and selecting the 4^th respondent by issuing the impugned selection list which did not warrant interference in the appeal, particularly when an appointment order was also issued on 13.01.2015 in favour of respondent No.4.

¶56

The various contentions urged by the 4^th respondent were refuted by the writ petitioner, who contends that Deputy Tahashildar is equally competent to exercise the power of

¶57

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB

¶58

WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶59

Tahashildar in view of Section 195 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 read with Central Government Revised Anganawadi Workers Appointment Guidelines issued by the Women and Child Development Department, Bengaluru dated 23.09.2017. It was also contended that the final selection list had been stayed by this Court during pendency of the writ petition, consequently, no reliance can be placed by the 4^th respondent on the appointment order to contend that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. It is therefore contended by writ petitioner that appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶60

After hearing the respective parties, learned Single Judge set aside the final selection list and remitted the matter back to the respondent-State to re-do the final selection list, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both writ petitioner and respondent No.4, by leaving open all contentions in this regard. In addition thereto, learned Single Judge just thought it fit to impose cost of Rs.2,00,000/- upon respondent-State for delay in completing the selection process and issuing the final selection list.

¶61

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB

¶62

WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶63

Aggrieved by the impugned order insofar as it relates to setting aside the final selection list and remitting the matter back to the respondent-State to redo the selection list, the 4^th respondent in the writ petition has preferred the Writ Appeal No.100299/2023. So also aggrieved by the same impugned order insofar as it relates to imposing exemplary cost of Rs.2,00,000/-, the State has preferred the Writ Appeal No.100207/2023.

¶64

We have heard the learned AGA for appellant/State and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2.

¶65

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the learned Single Judge has taken into account the rival contentions and has set aside the final selection list by noting that the relevant documents produced by both sides had not been considered or appreciated while issuing final selection list, which deserves redone by the appellant/State. As stated supra , the various contentions and documents urged by both sides, having not been considered by the appellant-State before issuing the final selection list and no opportunity having been provided by the appellant-State in favour of the writ petitioner

¶66

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB

¶68

WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶69

or in favour of the 4^th respondent, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the impugned selection list was contrary to the material on record as well as the notification dated 10.06.2011 and that the same deserves to be quashed and selection list be redone by the appellantState.

¶70

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge will indicate that the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present appeals, particularly when all rival contentions between the parties made in respect of claims having been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge, who has merely remitted the matter back to the authority for reconsideration and for redoing of the selection list afresh in accordance with law. Insofar as submission of learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal.No.100299/2023 that learned Single Judge has made various observations that would prejudice or affects the rights of the appellant is concerned, it is needless to state that the State and its authorities would redo the selection list afresh and by keeping open all contentions and by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both

¶71

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶73

writ petitioner and respondent No.4 (Appellant in WP.No. 100299/2023) to put forth their claims in accordance with law.

¶74

Insofar as grievance of the appellant/State in Writ Appeal No.100207/2023 regarding imposition of cost is concerned, having regard to the fact that no sufficient or valid reasons have been assigned in the impugned order for the purpose of imposing of punitive/exemplary costs of Rs.2,00,000/- upon State and its authorities. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, we deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to imposition of cost of Rs.2,00,000/- upon the appellant/State. In the result, we pass the following :

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i) Both appeals are hereby disposed off by partly allowing the same.

¶77

(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified by directing the State and its authorities to redo the selection list insofar as it relates to writ petitioner and respondent No.4 are concerned, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both of them to put forth their contentions in accordance with law.

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10325-DB WA No. 100207 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100299 of 2023

¶80

(iii) The impugned order insofar as it relates to imposing cost of Rs.2,00,000/- upon State and its authorities is hereby set aside. Consequently, directions issued to the State to recover Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent No.4 also stands set aside.

¶81

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the writ petitioner and respondent No.4 to file their respective pleadings, documents, etc., before the Deputy Director, Woman and Child Development, Welfare Department, Koppal, who shall consider the same and conduct enquiry and hear the writ petitioner and respondent No.4 and take appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶82

(v) The Deputy Director is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶83

(vi) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

CKK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32

Reshma W/O Razaksab Mulimani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma W/O Razaksab Mulimani 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

Sakramma D/O Late Umpleppa Alias Humelappa Vs State of Karnataka

Govindraj S/O Putopanth Kulkarni Vs Ismail S/O Rashid Sait

Ramappa S/O Gurappa Lamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Irene Power and Steel Company Vs Nirani Sugars Ltd.

Smt Hanumakka W/O Late Suresh Vs S M Shantha Murthy S/O S.M. Thippeswamy

Represented by Its Secretary Dept of Woman and Child Development M S Building Bengaluru 560001 Vs Smt Dyamakka Wife Kalakappa Kuntoji Age 23 Yrs Occ Nil R/O Yalabunachi Janatha Plot Tq Kustagi