Allowed

Drakshayani D/O Swarevva Pujar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024WP/105973/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed orders rejecting the petitioner's and Respondent No. 6's applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker. It directed the selection committee to reconsider applications strictly per guidelines, allowing four weeks to complete the process within a week for document submission.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; writ of mandamus issued for fresh consideration within four weeks.

Drakshayani D/O Swarevva Pujar Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105973 OF 2019 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DRAKSHAYANI D/O. SWAREVVA PUJAR, AGED ABOUT: 41 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: WARD NO.3, KERUR-578206, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT,

¶14

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT,

¶16

M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT, ANGANWADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, BAGALKOTE, DISTRICT: BAGALKOTE.

¶18

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZP BAGALKOTE AND VICE PRESIDENT, ANGANWADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, ZILLA PANCHAYAT BAGALKOTE, BAGALKOTE.

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶21

R/BY CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY, ANGANWADI/SELECTION COMMITTEE BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶22

ANNAPURNA BHAJANTRI, AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRESENTLY SELECTED ANGANWADI ASSISTANT TEACHER, R/O: WARD NO.3, AMBEDKAR ONI, KERUR-578206, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5; SRI KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6.)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶26

A. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 26.01.2019 ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 THE COMMITTEE IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶27

B. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING SELECTION ORDER DATED 27.01.2019 BEARING NO. �� /2018-19 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN SELECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-L.

¶28

C. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-H AFRESH AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ANGANWADI WORKER AT KERU VILLAGE, WARD NO.3 TALUK BADAMI AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5 and learned counsel Sri Kushal V. Bolmal, for respondent No.6.

¶34

2. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the order dated 26.01.2019 vide Annexure-K passed by respondent No.3 and the selection order dated 27.01.2019 vide Annexure-L passed by respondent No.5 and consequently to grant a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner.

¶35

3. Petitioner is a handicapped lady aged 41 years, unmarried, belongs to scheduled caste and a destitute and is a daughter of a Devadasi woman. She has studied till SSLC despite all difficulties and odds in life. She is the resident of Ward No.3 in Kerur village of Badami taluka in Bagalkote district. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a suitable and most eligible candidate to suit the reservation provided under the Anganwadi worker category

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶37

as she comes within three categories of being handicapped lady, being a schedule caste, destitute and daughter of a Devadasi woman.

¶38

4. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.3 invited applications for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker/Assistant Teacher in Bagalkote district, vide notification dated 06.02.2018 for Ward No.3, which is reserved for Scheduled Caste at Sl.No.20 in the said notification. Petitioner made an application before the 4^th respondent submitting all necessary documents namely, marks card, certificate of physical handicap, a residential certificate at acknowledgement No.RD0038109067412 and also Devadasi woman certificate, Aadhar card, caste certificate and affidavit.

¶39

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had applied for the residential certificate and she had received an acknowledgment from the Tahasildar, which she has annexed along with the application for appointment. The Tahasildar had issued a certificate on 07.03.2018. It is contended by learned counsel

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶41

for petitioner that as per the guidelines issued by the Government, preference is required to be given in the manner stipulated in the circular/guidelines of the Government, wherein it says, if there is no widow woman, respondent No.3 committee ought to have selected the petitioner in view of the petitioner falling within the category of disabled women and also coming under the scheduled caste category, so also being a daughter of a former Devadasi. Whereas, respondent No.3 committee rejected the application of the petitioner on 26.01.2019 on the ground that petitioner did not produce certificate of residential proof and accordingly respondent No.6 who had also applied for the said post was selected after initial scrutiny.

¶42

6. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner had produced Aadhar card, residential certificate acknowledgment obtained from the Tahasildar, the other certificates mentioned hereinabove to show that she is better and more suitable than respondent No.6 and having been more qualified and more suitable for appointment as per the circular and guidelines. The

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶44

respondent ought to have selected the petitioner rather than responder No.6. Pursuant to the objection being raised, the petitioner approached and submitted the acknowledgment given by the Tahasildar and accordingly sought be appointed rather than selection of respondent No.6.

¶45

7. Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 committee appointing respondent No.6, questioning the appointment of respondent No.6, which is illegal, invalid and contrary to the guidelines prescribed by the respondent State. It is further contended that respondent No.3 committee has failed to take into consideration the necessary prerequisites and the categories of priority in appointment to be made for the Anganwadi worker/Assistant Teacher.

¶46

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that priority of selection is formulated in the circular at clause No.III, wherein it is clearly specified that applicants who can be given priority and what are the priorities. In the said list of priorities, the petitioner would come in the priority of preference No.(4) of selection of disabled woman. The

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶48

petitioner would also get a further bonus marks as she is a daughter of a former Devadasi. It is also to be seen that the petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste category and therefore she would also get additional points or marks for being selected to the said post. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without taking into consideration these priorities and preferences stipulated in the guidelines, respondent No.3 only with an intention to help and benefit the 6^th respondent has illegally rejected the application of petitioner and has appointed the 6^th respondent to the said post. Therefore, petitioner being aggrieved by the selection of the 6^th respondent, has approached this Court.

¶49

9. Vide order dated 19.02.2019, this Court stayed Annexure-L notification calling for appointment, which was the notification issued for appointment of Anganwadi Worker/Assistant Teacher. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petition be allowed as she possesses all necessary requirements on the basis of priority and preferences, her application shall be

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶51

considered and the petitioner requires to be appointed to the said post rather than respondent No.6, who does not come within any of the category or preferences or priorities as that of the petitioner.

¶52

10. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has filed statement of objections on behalf of the State. It is vehemently contended by learned AGA that the process of appointment for Anganwadi workers is by way of an application through online procedure and by way of a revised guidelines notification dated 23.09.2017, an independent selection committee is constituted to scrutinize the applications submitted online, thereafter call for interview, shortlist the candidates, prepare a provisional list and thereafter a final list of selected candidates. Accordingly, it is further contended by learned AGA that the post of Anganwadi Worker/helper is an honorarium post, which is created to ensure the welfare of children and society at large, which is a crucial role of Anganwadi worker/helper to provide nutrition to the young children and lactating mothers in rural areas. The guidelines of 23.09.2017 has been

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶54

gazetted and notified by the State essentially to give effect to Article 47 of the Constitution of India more specifically to adhere to the guidelines, which are made mandatory.

¶55

11. It is the contention of learned AGA that petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements and he has not filed the documents in the online portal and has violated the guidelines stipulated therein. Primarily he contends that the petitioner has not given and furnished the residential proof certificate through online submission. So also it is contended that though the petitioner has claimed to be the daughter of a Devadasi, she has not produced any material documents to show that she belongs to Devadasi community, which is required to be issued by the Karnataka Women and Child Development Department. It is also contended by learned AGA that the physical handicap certificate has not been properly produced as required as the certificate produced is from the District Medical Board certifying disability but has not produced the disability certificate issued from the Social Welfare Department.

¶56

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶57

12. The certificate from District Medical Board show her disability does not exceed 60% as per the guideline No.III-4-(I), which is again in violation of the guidelines issued by the State. It is also further contended by learned AGA that the medical disability certificate issued by the Social Welfare Department in favour of the petitioner mentions 50 to 65% disability of the petitioner which is beyond the requirement stipulated in the guidelines of 2017 which should not exceed 60%. Therefore, on the basis of all these irregularities and violations, the application of the petitioner is rightly rejected, which does not call for interference.

¶58

13. Learned counsel representing respondent No.6 vehemently contends that respondent No.6 has been selected upon considering all the documents produced and having fulfilled the same, the selection is made by the committee which does not call for interference as there is no irregularity or default committed by respondent No.6 in furnishing any of the requirements as per the circular/guidelines published by the respondent-State. On

¶59

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶60

the contrary, he submits that the petitioner has not produced relevant documents of domicile certificate which is mandatory in nature as prescribed in the guidelines. Hence, rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker/Assistant Teacher is correct and does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He further submits that the petitioner having approached this Court has obtained interim order of stay of the notification and thereby nobody has been appointed and no work is going on from 2018 till date, thereby causing a vacuum to the much needed students and the lactating mothers in the rural areas of Ward No.3 in Kerur village. Under the circumstances, he contends that there is no illegality committed by respondent No.3 and consequently seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶61

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents along with the Additional Government Advocate, it is not in dispute that the circular/guidelines issued by the respondent-State is specific and clear and there is no ambiguity with regard to priority and preferences while selecting the Anganwadi

¶62

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶63

Worker/ Helpers/Assistant Teachers for the specified area. The petitioner has applied for the post along with respondent No.6. The only ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application is that residential certificate is not produced. It is also not in dispute by the respondent authorities that the petitioner has produced all other documents of Aadhar Card, SSLC Marks Card, Caste Certificate and Physical Handicap Certificate and an acknowledgment issued by the Tahasildar with regard to the residential certificate having been applied and also Devadasi Certificate.

¶64

15. When objections were raised with regard to the petitioner not being eligible for the post, the petitioner filed a statement asserting that she had applied for the residential certificate. But the same is yet to be given and acknowledgment is produced along with the application by online process. The same was not considered and respondent No.3 committee selected respondent No.6. Admittedly, there is no pleading by respondent No.6 or by the State with regard to respondent No.6 coming within any of the

¶65

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶66

categories of priority or preference as specified in the circular/guidelines issued by the State Government.

¶67

16. There is no pleading by respondent No.6 as to she coming within any of the categories priority/preferences which is made in the circular/guidelines. But learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits across the Bar that respondent No.6 comes within the category No.2 of the inmates of departmental institutions and she also belongs to SC community and therefore, on the basis of these categories respondent No.6 has fulfilled the requirement and she has rightly been selected as against the petitioner. What is required to be seen by respondent No.3 selection committee is that who is the most suitable and eligible candidate for appointment to the said post after furnishing application form through online portal, after scrutinizing the applications while short listing the candidates and preparing the provisional list and final list of selected candidates.

¶68

17. When any shortcoming is forthcoming with regard to non production of any of the documents, respondent No.3 committee ought to have called for reasons for not furnishing

¶69

14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶70

the residential certificate and rather only producing the acknowledgment from the Tahasildar, which has not been done in the present case. In the meanwhile, before the final list is produced and declared, the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained an interim order. It is seen that the objections were called for on 27.01.2019 by granting seven days time and immediately thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition on 11.02.2019. Hence the final process of selection has not happened and it has been deferred in view of the stay order granted by this Court.

¶71

18. It is seen that in view of the stay order granted, nobody has been appointed in compliance to the order passed by this Court and the Anganwadi center is affected by virtue of this order, which has not proceeded further either by the petitioner or by the respondents by seeking vacating or modification of the order at the earliest point of time. Under the circumstances, it would be in the interest of parties and the Anganwadi center where the school and other activities are run, the 3^rd respondent proceeds further

¶72

15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶73

in the selection process by considering all these aspects of the petitioner’s eligibility with regard to all the documents produced by way of online submission and also any further document that could be produced within the time stipulated by this Court and so also for respondent No.6 to produce any further document in support of her case to show she is equally eligible or more suitable than the petitioner, which shall be considered by respondent No.3 selection committee and decide the matter in accordance with the circular and guidelines issued and in accordance with law expeditiously in a time bound manner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i) The petition is allowed.

¶76

ii) The impugned order dated 26.01.2019

¶77

vide Annexure-K, passed by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶78

iii) The order dated 27.01.2019 vide Annexure-L, passed by the 5^th respondent

¶79

16 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶80

selecting the 6^th respondent herein is also quashed.

¶81

iv) A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3 to consider the applications of petitioner as well as responder No.6 and their suitability strictly in accordance with the circular and guidelines issued by the State Government, which is produced by the respondent at AnnexureR1 and R2 proceedings of the Government of Karnataka.

¶82

v) The said process shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶83

vi) The petitioner and respondent No.6 are permitted to produce any further documents with regard to their eligibility or suitability for selection which shall be taken and accepted by the respondent No.3 for consideration.

¶84

17 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16160 WP No. 105973 of 2019

¶85

vii) The petitioner and respondent No.6

¶86

are given one week time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for submission of any documents to show their eligibility and suitability of preference and priority as per the guidelines and circular, pursuant to which respondents No.3 and 5 shall proceed further to pass orders.

¶87

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶88

MRK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Drakshayani D/O Swarevva Pujar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Drakshayani D/O Swarevva Pujar 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

Sri.Phalahara Shivayogeshwara Shikshana Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Gururaja Proud a Shale Vs the State of Karnataka

Jaswitha Gunnam Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Mallappa S/O Parappa Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Channappa S/O Subbanna Vs the Principal Secretary

Uppar Venkatesh S/O Tippanna Vs the Karnataka State Government Employees Association -R-