Partly allowed

Sushila Naik W/O Ramesh Naik @ Sushila Bhimappa Nilajagi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2024WP/106314/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the selection of a widow as an Anganawadi Helper, the High Court held that higher educational qualifications do not render a candidate ineligible but also ruled that relaxations from selection guidelines are impermissible without a government circular. The appointment selection was quashed for procedural lapses.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in part; respondents directed to reconsider selections and issue appointment order to the most meritorious candidate within two months.

Sushila Naik W/O Ramesh Naik @ Sushila… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11010 WP No. 106314 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.106314 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUSHILA NAIK W/O RAMESH NAIK @ SUSHILA BHIMAPPA NILAJAGI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O: KEMPATTI VILLAGE, POST: JODKURLI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SOURABHA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JOSHI SHRIPRASAD JAYATEERTH & SRI RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 5^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 5^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SRISHAKTI BHAVANA, AKKAN MARG, DOUBLE ROAD,

¶16

MM EXTENSION BELAGAVI – 590 017.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11010 WP No. 106314 of 2023

¶18

CHILD DEVELOPMEMNT PROJECT OFFICER NEAR GANPATI TEMPLE, CHINCHALI ROAD, OPP. IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT OFFICE RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

BALAVVA BHAJANTRI, W/O. SURYAKANT, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI HELPER, R/O: 686, KAMPATTI VILLAGE, POST: JODKURLI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 581 213.

¶20

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 AND R6; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 02 DATED 21/07/2023 BEARING NO. U NI BE. MA MA A E.AN KAA KA.GOU SE. GU.2023-24/1308 ANNEXURE A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS “ANGANAWADI WORKER (SAHAYAKI)” FOR KEMPATTI VILLAGE, UPPARKODI-2, TALUKA RAIBAG AS SHE IS THE ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE FOR THE SAID POST AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11010 WP No. 106314 of 2023

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Challenging order dated 21.07.2023 at Annexure-A selecting respondent no.5 as Anganawadi Helper of Upparkodi2, Kempatti village Anganawadi Center, this writ petition is filed.

¶28

Sri Sourabh Hegde, learned counsel appearing for Sri Raviraj C.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in pursuance of notification calling for applications for selection of Anganawadi Helper of Upparkodi-2, Kempatti village, petitioner had filed application as per Annexure-B. It was submitted, petitioner had passed 9^th standard with 449 marks, out of 600 marks and her percentage is 74.83%. It was submitted, in respect of same, respondent no.5 had also filed application as per Annexure-D. It was submitted, though respondent no.5 had stated that her marks in 8^th standard was 524 out of 600, respondent no.5 had actually passed SSLC, as would be evident from Annexure-K, copy of application filed by respondent no.5 for selection as Gram Kayaka Mitra. Referring

¶29

to selection guidelines specifically to para no.3(i)(e) (ii)(a), it was submitted candidates with educational qualification above 9^th standard, could not be considered.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11010 WP No. 106314 of 2023

¶31

It was submitted, since respondent no.5 had suppressed her higher education qualification for purpose of selection, application was not bona-fide. It was further submitted, impugned order at Annexure-A indicated that selection of respondent no.5 was on ground that she was a widow. It was submitted, as per Annexure-D, respondent no.5 had not applied under ‘widow’ category. Even her objection to petitioner’s name in provisional selection list clearly showed that respondent no.5 had not appended copy of death certificate of her husband along with her online application. Such being case, merely on ground that higher authorities had permitted relaxation selection of respondent no.5, would be contrary to guidelines.

¶32

Relying upon decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited and Another Vs H.L.Kaveri and Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 108, it was submitted that an application filed without accompaniment of necessary documents would be incomplete and candidate would be ineligible. On above grounds, learned counsel sought for quashing of Annexure-A.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11010 WP No. 106314 of 2023

¶35

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents no.1 to 4 and 6 sought to support selection. Respondent no.5 is served unrepresented.

¶36

It was submitted that selection guidelines at Annexure-J provided selection of widows on priority over all other applications. Since, respondent no.5 was a widow and though had not produced death certificate of her husband along with application, she had produced same at time of consideration of objections to provisional selection list. Taking note of same and after seeking instructions from Government, selection committee had proceeded to select respondent no.5. It was also submitted, respondent no.5 was higher in merit than petitioner. Hence, no interference was warranted.

¶37

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶38

records.

¶39

From above, selection of respondent no.5 as Anganawadi Helper is assailed on two specific contentions. Firstly, on ground that respondent no.5 was higher educational qualification than prescribed, was ineligible and secondly, on ground that she had not appended copy of death certificate to

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11010 WP No. 106314 of 2023

¶41

substantiate that she was a widow, while filing online application. Insofar as ineligibility due to higher educational qualification, extant guidelines would provide that educational qualification higher than 9^th standard has to be ignored. Said stipulation cannot be understood to render candidatures with higher educational qualification ineligible and taken out of zone of consideration. First ground, therefore requires to be rejected.

¶42

Insofar as second contention, indeed application filed by respondent no.5 as per Annexure-D does not indicate that she had claimed priority as a widow. Infact marital status column is filled as married. Even as per her objections to provisional selection list at Annexure-E, there is clear admission by respondent no.5 that Death Certificate of her husband did not accompany online application.

¶43

Under such circumstances, though selection of Anganawadi Helper and Anganawadi Workers are under guidelines, but guidelines themselves would be law and same has to be followed strictly. Relaxation, if any, requires to be made by way of amendment or a clarificatory circular issued by

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11010 WP No. 106314 of 2023

¶46

Government and not otherwise. Therefore, on such short ground, petition would succeed.

¶47

Consequently, writ petition is allowed in part. Respondents no.1 to 4 are directed to reconsider application for selection strictly in accordance with guidelines and observations made above and to issue appointment order to most meritorious candidate within two months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶48

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶49

AM,CLK CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sushila Naik W/O Ramesh Naik @ Sushila Bhimappa Nilajagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Naik W/O Ramesh Naik @ Sushila Bhimappa Nilajagi 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

Sri Prakash Basappa Hosagouder Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Yamanavva W/O. Late Ningappa Bhoovi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Geenagara Rajesha S/O Geenagara Venkanna Vs the Managing Director

Smt P Nagashri W/O K Vinaykumar Vs Sri K Vinaykumar S/O K Vijrakumara Swamy

Shri Pramod S/O Appasaheb Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Yallappa S/O Nagappa Koravar Vs the State of Karnataka