Petitioner, an Anganawadi worker commuting 64 km daily, challenged rejection of her transfer plea on distance grounds. Court allowed petition, set aside impugned order, and directed authorities to reconsider transfer given exceptional hardship.
Impugned order dated 10.01.2020 set aside; authorities directed to reconsider transfer petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:9008 WP No. 11343 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11343 OF 2020 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
MRS. GEETHA H GOWDA @ PAGGTEGAR W/O KUPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.1/90, NAYAK NIVAS ARAMANEHAKLU, SHIROOR VILLAGE BYNDOOR HOBLI, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 228
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ISMAIL M. MUSBA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581320
NC: 2024:KHC:9008 WP No. 11343 of 2020
BHATKAL, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581320
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; R3 & R4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 BEARING NO.DWC/ICD/ ANG1/2019 – 20 PASSED BY THE R-2 THEREBY REJECTING THE PRAYER FOR TRANSFER OF THE PETITIONER FROM DEVAGIRI - 1ST CENTER, ANGANAWADI CENTER TO MAYYADI ANGANAWADI CENTER, PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by Anganawadi worker assailing the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A wherein petitioner’s request to transfer the petitioner from Devagiri Anganawadi Centre to Mayyadi Anganawadi Centre is rejected on the ground that it contravenes the restricted radius of the residence and the proposed Anganawadi, where petitioner is seeking transfer.
petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records.
NC: 2024:KHC:9008 WP No. 11343 of 2020
counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a vacancy at Belkeri Anganawadi Centre.
NC: 2024:KHC:9008 WP No. 11343 of 2020
examine whether petitioner can be considered to transfer to the vacant post.
NC: 2024:KHC:9008 WP No. 11343 of 2020
64 kms. per day obviously violates the guidelines and therefore, this is a fit case where respondent authorities have to use a little bit of wisdom and reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 10.01.2020 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby set aside;
(iii) The respondent authorities are hereby called upon to reconsider the representations bearing in mind that petitioner who is receiving honorarium is compelled to travel 64 kms. to and fro every day to discharge her duty of Anganawadi worker.
Sd/JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
CA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the refusal to transfer an Anganawadi worker from her current posting to a proposed center within radius guidelines is permissible when she is currently commuting an excessive 64 km daily to h
Whether the writ jurisdiction can interfere with a transfer order to direct reconsideration on unique factual grounds of hardship.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MRS. GEETHA H GOWDA @ PAGGTEGAR
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN AND CHILD WELFARE AND OTHERS
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
