Partly allowed

Smt Chandrakala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/21264/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the appointment of a third respondent as an Anganwadi worker. The Court found the petitioner was eligible as her husband died within the application window. The Court restored the petitioner's appointment and directed a vacancy to be created for the third respondent elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's appointment restored; third respondent appointed to Palya-2 village effective October 2024.

Smt Chandrakala Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21264 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT CHANDRAKALA, W/O LATE MALLU, AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NAYAKARA BEDDI, PALYA, KOLLEGAL TALUK - 571 440. CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P C SUNITHA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN WELFARE HANDICAP AND SENIOR CITIZEN REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01. REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

¶13

JOINT DIRECTOR (ICDS), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN, ANGANWADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571313.

¶15

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ON BEHALF OF DEPUTY SECRETARY

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶17

OF ZILLA PANCHAYATH, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CHILD AND WOMEN WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶19

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY, ANGANWADI SELECTION COMMITTEE, KOLELGAL - 571 440. CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT SHIVAMMA R, W/O LATE SIDDAPPANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NAYAKARA BEDDHI, HOSA BADAVANI, PALYA, KOLLEGAL TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI S A AHMED, AAG ALONG WITH SRI PRINCE ISAC, AAG FOR R1 -3, 5 AND 6; SRI SUNEEL S NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-7)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNX-K ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT IN NUMBER U NI CHA.MA MA E I CD.AA. KA.K.NEMAKA.2024-25/251 DTD. 05.07.2024 AND ALSO TO QUASH THE ANNX-L ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CHAMARAJANAGARA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT IN

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶25

NUMBER U NI CHA MA.MA.E I CD. AA KA K. UDDE/EO.202425/260 DTD. 05.07.2024 AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has challenged the order bearing No. G¤ZÁ:ªÀÄªÀÄE:L¹r:CAPÁPÀ:£ÉÃªÀÄPÀ:2024-25 dated 05.07.2024, passed

¶30

by the respondent No.5 as well as the order bearing No. ¸ÀA/²CAiÉÆÃPÉÆ/CAPÁPÀ/ºÀÄzÉÝ/»A/2024-25/260 dated 05.07.2024, passed

¶31

by the respondent No.6, by which the respondent No.7 was appointed as the Anganwadi Worker at Palya-1, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to 6 to appoint her in the place of respondent No.7.

¶32

(i) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 issued a notification inviting applications online to fill up 70 posts of Anganwadi workers and 153 posts of Anganwadi Helpers in Chamarajanagar District.

¶33

The respondent No.3 published a calendar of events.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶36

(ii) The petitioner contends that the Government of Karnataka had issued revised guidelines for recruitment of Anganwadi workers/Helpers in terms of which, preference was given to widows in the selection process. The petitioner contends that due to Covid - 19 pandemic, respondent No.5 extended the last date for filling applications till 30.06.2021. The petitioner submitted the application online on 30.06.2021, under the widow category, for the post of Anganwadi worker at Palya-1, Kollegal Taluk along with requisite documents.

¶37

(iii) The respondent No.7 had also filed an application under the widow category for the post of Anganwadi worker. A provision list was published whereby the respondent No.7 was provisionally selected. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she did not produce the caste certificate. The petitioner thereafter, obtain the caste certificate and produced it. The respondent No.6 inspected the genuineness of the documents and was satisfied. Thereafter, a final select list was published whereby the petitioner who had secured the highest marks in the qualifying exam was selected. An order of appointment was issued appointing the petitioner as Anganawadi Worker at Palya - 1, Kollegal Taluk. She thereafter joined duty on 07.10.2022.

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶39

When things stood thus, the respondent No.7 filed W.P No.20277/2022 contending that when the notification dated 12.04.2021 was issued, the husband of the petitioner was alive and therefore she was not entitled to apply under the widow category. The notice of this writ petition was served on the petitioner, but she did not appear in the said writ petition. This Court in terms of the order dated 11.04.2023, held that the husband of the petitioner was alive as on the date of notification and therefore the authorities must have considered the case of respondent No.7 or any other eligible candidate. Accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner was set aside and the matter was remitted to the selection committee to take a fresh decision. However, the services of the petitioner was ordered to be continued till a fresh consideration was made by the selection committee.

¶40

The respondent No.2 then issued a direction to respondent No.5 to place the subject before the District Selection Committee for further action in terms of the order of this Court in W.P No.20277/2022. The respondent Nos.3 to 6 constituted a committee on 27.06.2024, and they held that the head of the departments had given an opinion to select the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶43

respondent No.7. Consequently, respondent Nos.3 to 6 directed that the respondent No.7 may be appointed as Anganawadi worker at Palya -1, Kollegal Taluk after cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.

¶44

The petitioner contends that after her appointment,

¶45

she had successfully undergone training at Mysore. She claimed that she had three children, of whom, a daughter was blind at the time of birth. She claim that she was the only earning member in the family and the cancellation of her appointment would adversely affect her livelihood. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the last date for filling the application was extended upto 30.06.2021 and the husband of the petitioner died on 12.06.2021. The petitioner filed her application on 30.06.2021, under the widow category. Therefore she contends that, when the application was filed by the petitioner, she had lost her husband and therefore she was entitled to apply under the widow category. She contended that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 must have heard the petitioner before cancelling her appointment and that respondent Nos.3 to 6 misinterpreted the

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶49

order of this Court in W.P No.20277/2022 and erroneously appointed the respondent No.7. She contends that, at any rate, the petitioner had secured the highest marks in SSLC and therefore, she was entitled to be appointed.

¶50

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent No.7 contended that, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have furnished the death certificate of her husband in W.P No.20277/2022. He contends that since the petitioner did not appear in the writ petition, this Court accepted the contentions and held that the petitioner was ineligible to be appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker. He therefore contends that, there is no error committed by respondent No.5 and 6 in appointing the respondent No.7 as Anganwadi Worker, in terms of the impugned order.

¶51

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that, the respondent No.5 and 6 have only complied with the direction issued by this Court in W.P No.20277/2022 and since respondent No.7 was the next eligible candidate, an appointment order was issued to her and therefore, there is no error in the impugned order.

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶53

I have considered the submissions of learned

¶54

counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.7 and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶55

The Respondent No.7 filed W.P No.20277/2022 alleging that the husband of the petitioner was alive when the recruitment notification was issued and therefore, she was ineligible to apply in the widow category and hence ineligible to be appointed. She claimed that she was next in the line and therefore was entitled to be appointed. She contended that the petitioner in the present writ petition was arrayed as one of the respondents in W.P No.20277/2022 but she did not contest W.P No.20277/2022 and did not bring to the notice of this Court that her husband had expired before the last date for filing the application. Therefore, this Court in W.P No.20277/2022 did not have any option than to allow the writ petition and set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner and direct the respondent No.5 and 6 to reconsider the matter afresh. The petitioner was now woken up after respondent No.7 was appointed.

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶57

It is true that the husband of the petitioner was died on 12.06.2021, which was before the last date fixed for filling an application i.e., on 30.06.2021. Therefore, the petitioner was indeed entitled to apply under widow category and she having secured the highest marks in the SSLC examination, was rightly appointed.

¶58

However, the respondent No.7 was not at fault as she was appointed under the impugned order after the order of appointment was set-aside by this Court in W.P No.20277/2022. In order to solve this imbroglio, this Court called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to ascertain whether there are any vacant posts of Anganwadi worker, where the respondent No.7 could be accommodated. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted in writing that there are seven Anganwadi centers existing in Palya village and that the Anganwadi Worker who was appointed in Palya - 02 Anganawadi Centre is due to retire in the month of October 2024. Therefore he submitted that, the respondent No.7 could be accommodated at Palya - 02 centre after the retirement of the Anganwadi worker.

¶59

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶60

In view of the aforesaid, since the petitioner was better qualified than respondent No.7 and was entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Palya-1 Village and since respondent No.7 was not at fault, it is appropriate to appoint her as Anganwadi worker at Palya-2 village, after the incumbent retires in the month of October 2024. This would take care of the interests of both the petitioner and respondent No.7.

¶61

Consequently, the following order is passed.

¶62

i) This writ petition is disposed off, directing the respondent No.3, 5 and 6 to appoint the respondent No.7 as Anganwadi worker at Palya-2 Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajnagar District with effect from October 2024.

¶63

ii) The respondent No.6 shall prepare the required proposal and forward it to respondent No.3 for an appropriate order appointing respondent No.7, who shall pass an order, appointing her by the end of October 2024.

¶64

(iii) The services of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Palya-1 Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajnagar District

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:37593 WP No. 21264 of 2024

¶66

11 -

¶67

shall stand restored and continued she shall be entitled to

¶68

all benefits.

¶69

(iv). It is needless that this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and shall not

¶70

be treated as a precedent.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶73

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Smt Chandrakala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chandrakala 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

Sri Benakesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs the Kuvempu University

Sri Manjunath Banni Vs the General Manager

Sri G B Marappa Vs State of Karnataka

Jayaram Reddy Vs the Managing Director Corporation Office

Smt. K. N. Sujatha Vs the Government of Karnataka