Allowed

Smt. Jaya D/O Parasa Mulladar After Marriage W/O Shivappa Chitageri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024WP/104622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petition of Anganawadi Helper seeking upgradation to Worker. Directing respondents to consider application under 2017 guidelines (3 years service) rather than revised 2022 guidelines (5 years) as case arose prior to revision date. Order issued under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner petition allowed; respondents directed to consider upgradation claim under 2017 guidelines within four weeks.

Smt. Jaya D/O Parasa Mulladar After… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12303 WP No. 104622 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.104622 OF 2024 (S-PRO)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.JAYA D/O. PARASA MULLADAR, AFTER MARRIAGE, W/O. SHIVAPPA CHITAGERI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI ASSISTANT, R/O: SULLALLI VILLAGE, POST: AANDALAGI, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: KARWAR – 49.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI C.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KARWAR – 581 301.

¶15

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BASAVAN BIDI, TQ: MUNDGOD – 581 34.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER DATED 24/07/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE–C FOR PROMOTION BY FOLLOWING 2017 GUIDELINES AS ANGANWADI TEACHER IN RESPECT OF SULLALLI VILLAGE ANGANWADI CENTER TQ-MUNDGOD, KARWAR-DIST AND ETC.,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12303 WP No. 104622 of 2024

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to consider petitioner’s representation/application dated 24.07.2024 as per Annexure-C for upgradation as Anganawadi Worker of Sullalli village Anganawadi Centre, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Sri C.S.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was selected as Anganawadi Helper of Sullalli village, Mundgod Taluk in year 2017 by following selection process contained in Government Order dated 23.09.2017 at Annexure-A. As per para-VII of same, Anganawadi Helpers who had passed SSLC, completed 3 years of service as Anganawadi Helpers, were below 45 years of age and residing within radius of 3 kms of any new Anganawadi Centre or where vacancy had arisen in case of Anganawadi Worker, were required to be considered for upgradation without notifying such vacancy for selection process in regular course. As petitioner was eligible, she submitted representation at Annexure-C to respondents no.2

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12303 WP No. 104622 of 2024

¶26

and 3. However, by irregularly rejecting representation as per Annexure-D notification at Annexure-E was issued. It was submitted, as per Annexure-F/certificate dated 07.08.2023 issued by Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, petitioner’s residence was located within distance of 600 meters from Sullalli Anganawadi Centre. It was submitted, under similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.no.106403/2023 disposed of on 15.02.2024 had directed to consider application for upgradation by applying guidelines as per G.O. dated 23.09.2017. On said grounds sought for allowing writ petition.

¶27

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents sought to oppose writ petition. It was submitted, since petitioner’s request was already rejected on ground that guidelines for selection of Anganawadi Workers were revised in 2022 by increasing period of service eligibility from 3 years to 5 years. It was submitted as petitioner had completed 4 years 8 months only, she was ineligible.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12303 WP No. 104622 of 2024

¶29

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶30

record.

¶31

From above, it is seen petitioner, an Anganawadi

¶32

Helper is seeking for upgradation as Anganawadi Worker

¶33

which was vacant in Anganawadi Centre where she was working. Though as per endorsement at Annexure-D, same is rejected, only reason for rejection is failure to complete 5

¶34

years service as Anganawadi Helper, by referring to Selection Guidelines dated 03.12.2022. This Court in W.P.no.106403/2023 in case of a Anganawadi Helper appointed following 2017 Guidelines and refusing to consider her claim for upgradation by referring to revised guidelines dated 03.12.2022, had referred to communication dated 23.01.2024 issued by Director, Department of Women and Child Welfare held that in respect of notifications issued prior to 03.12.2022, guidelines dated 23.09.2017 would apply and not revised guidelines. Perusal of said communication dated 23.01.2024 reveals in cases arising prior to 03.12.2022,

¶35

revised guidelines would not apply and minimum 3 years service period as per 2017 guidelines would apply. Said

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12303 WP No. 104622 of 2024

¶37

clarification and order passed by this Court would squarely apply to petitioner’s case.

¶38

Therefore, petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to consider petitioner’s claim for upgradation as Anganawadi Worker as per guidelines of year 2017 without referring to endorsement at Annexure-D within an outer limit of four weeks from date of certified copy of this order in accordance with law, but referring to observations made

¶39

hereinabove.

¶40

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶41

CLK CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Smt. Jaya D/O Parasa Mulladar After Marriage W/O Shivappa Chitageri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jaya D/O Parasa Mulladar After Marriage W/O Shivappa Chitageri 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

Shri. Shankar S/O Mahadev Shindhe Vs Union of India

Sri Satish S/O Mahadev Naik Vs the General Manager

Sri. Gurudev S/O Siddappa Gujanal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Praveen Ashok Gudihal Vs Smt. Indria W/O Praveen Gudihal

Basanagoud S/O Ramanagoud Goudar Vs the Karnataka State Open University

Smt. Shilpa W/O. Jagadish Hadapad Vs Sri. Jagadish S/O. Basappa Hadapad