Partly allowed

Smt Gowramma a v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024WP/2335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the appointment of a sixth respondent over the petitioner for an Anganawadi Assistant post due to alleged residence discrepancies. The court, finding the petitioner's application flawed yet the authorities' inaction suspicious, did not set aside the appointment but directed the second respondent to appoint the petitioner to a nearby vacant post within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to issue appointment orders to the petitioner as an Anganawadi Assistant in the Ward No. 5 post at Bedarakannappa within four weeks.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2335 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT GOWRAMMA A W/O G B GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT N.I. LAYOUT, KONASAGARA ROAD MOLAKALMURU, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577535

¶9

(ADINATH NARDE AND REVATHY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES,

¶10

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

UNIT NO 101, FIRST FLOOR, THE PRESIDENCY, OLD NO 1, NEW NO 82, ST MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE 560001

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SMT. REVATHY ADINATH NARDE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶17

BANGALORE 560001

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PRESIDENT DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE, ANGANAWADI WORKERS AND HELPERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA 577501

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEAR ONAKE OBAVVA KREEDANGANA CHITRADURGA 577501

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR PRESIDENT TALUK LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE, ANGANAWADI WORKERS AND HELPERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK MOLAKALMURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577535

¶21

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BEHIND STREE SHAKTI SAMARTHYA SOUDHA, STREE SHAKTHI BHAVANA, MOLAKALMURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577535

¶22

SMT AMBUJA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O SHIVAPRASAD M D RESIDING AT N C LAYOUT, WARD NO 9, MOLAKALMURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577535

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPOINTMENT OF 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-K SANKHEY.UNICHI/MAMAAE/ICD/AM/SA.AAYKE/2 023-24 DATED 01/12/2023 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY AND THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BESIDES BEING VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; DIRECT THE R1 TO 5 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER IN PLACE OF R6.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has participated in the selection process commenced to fill up, amongst others, the vacant post of an Anganawadi Assistant with NIC Layout, Pattana Panchayati, Ward No.9 with the issuance of Notification dated 27.03.2023 [ AnnexureB ]. The petitioner's candidature is overlooked, and the sixth respondent is appointed as against this post

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶33

by the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 [ AnnexureK ].

¶34

The undisputed facts are that the

¶35

petitioner and two others viz ., Smt. Susheelamma and the sixth respondent have submitted their applications in response to the Notification dated 27.03.2023. The petitioner, who is a resident of NIC Layout, Kanasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.9, has filed her application enclosing a Residence Certificate issued by the office of the Deputy Tahsildar, Kasaba Hobli, Molakalmuru Taluk showing that she is a resident of NIC Layout, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.10. The Notification dated 27.03.2023 insofar as Molakalmuru, Pattana Panchayati is only for Ward No.9 and is not for Ward No.10, or any other Wards for that matter. The petitioner in her application has shown that she is a resident of NIC Layout without mentioning the Ward Number.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶38

The Selection Committee, which

¶39

comprised of the different authorities who are arrayed as the respondents, has published the Provisional List showing Smt. Susheelamma as the selected candidate for the post of the Anganwadi Assistant, NIC Layout, Ward No.9. The petitioner has filed her objections stating inter alia that she is a resident of NIC Layout, Kanasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.9 and Smt. Susheelamma, who is not a resident of this Ward, is selected. The Selection Committee, in the light of the petitioner's objections, has given up the selection of Smt. Susheelamma and selected the sixth respondent.

¶40

The petitioner has also immediately thereafter approached the office of the Deputy Tahsildar, Kasaba Hobli, Molakalmuru Taluk and obtained a Residence Certificate dated 20.09.2023 to indicate that she is a resident of NIC Layout, Konasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.9.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶43

Admittedly, the petitioner in the merit list is placed higher than the sixth respondent but for the confusion about the petitioner being resident of NIC Layout Ward No.9.

¶44

Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Selection Committee, especially given the terms of the Notification dated 27.03.2023 stipulating that a decision on the candidature will be taken after due discussion, could not have ignored the petitioner's objections and should have taken appropriate measures to verify whether the petitioner was indeed a resident of NIC Layout, Ward No.9 and not Ward No.10.

¶45

Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde further canvasses the following grounds to urge that the respondents could not have ignored the petitioner’s candidature because of she being placed on top in the merit list.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶48

[a] Though repeated representations are filed with the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga and the other revenue authorities for issuance of appropriate corrected Residence Certificate much before the date of the sixth respondent's selection, no action is taken until the sixth respondent is selected by the impugned order and she reported to duty.

¶49

[b] On the very next day, a spot mahazar is conducted based on the different representations filed to verify whether the petitioner is a resident of NIC Layout, Ward No.9 or Ward No.10.

¶50

[c] If the authorities had acted timely, appropriate report could have been forwarded to the Selection Committee to ensure that the petitioner, who is undoubtedly a resident of NIC Layout,

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶52

Konasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.9 would be selected based on merits.

¶53

Sri. B. Pramod, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, as against these submissions submits that crucially the petitioner has herself submitted the Residence Certificate dated 05.04.2009 indicating that she was a resident of NIC Layout, Konasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.10. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot rely upon a subsequently issued Certificate as the settled law is that the eligibility must be decided based on the details furnished in the application and the enclosed Certificates and that an applicant cannot be permitted to correct the details once furnished as that would disturb the very eligibility.

¶54

Further, Sri. B. Pramod submits that the Residence Certificate is issued by the revenue authorities in terms of the Guidelines issued by the

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶57

Government as regards the process to be followed and that cannot be relied upon to contend that the Selection Committee should have awaited the outcome of any application filed for correction of the Residence Certificate, especially with the petitioner herself filing the Certificate to show that she was a resident of NIC Layout, Konasagara, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.9.

¶58

Sri. Prince Isac, the learned Additional Government Advocate, was called upon to place on record the details of any vacancy for the posts of Anganawadi workers within Pattana Panchayati, NIC Layout, Molakalmuru Taluk in the event this Court were to conclude that the petitioner has made a semblance of right and that the sixth respondent cannot also be disturbed because of the lapse of time. In response, Sri. Prince Isac, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has placed on record the Communication dated 12.07.2024 addressed by the

¶59

10 -

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶61

third respondent. It is seen from this Communication that there is a vacant Anganwadi Assistant post with Pattana Panchayati, Ward No.5 [ Bedarakannappa, Ward No.5 Anganwadi Centre ] and that this Centre would only be at a distance of 1 km from the NIC Layout, Ward No.9, Anganwadi Centre.

¶62

The appointments to the posts of Anganwadi Assistants are finalized under the different Guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time, and the Selection Notification dated 27.03.2023 is also issued in accordance with the extant Guidelines. Indisputably, in terms of the Guidelines, the local candidates must be given preference over the candidates from other localities, and the locality of a candidate is decided based on the Residence Certificate issued by the revenue authorities. The State Government has also issued Guidelines on the process to be followed for issuance of a Residence Certificate. These Guidelines read that

¶63

11 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶65

a Residence Certificate must be issued on the basis of the details mentioned in the Ration Card, Voter's Election Identity or the Aadhaar Card. The further stipulation is that if an applicant wants a Residential Certificate for an area that is not mentioned in any one of these documents, there must be a spot inspection.

¶66

The petitioner is indeed issued with the Residence Certificate on 05.04.2023 showing that she is a resident of NIC Layout, Konasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.10 but with the publication of the Provisional List, the petitioner has filed objections as also representations with the revenue authorities, who are also members of the Selection Committee. The selection of Smt. Susheelamma is substituted with the selection of the sixth respondent, and the petitioner’s case is that this is because of her objections that Smt. Susheelamma was not a resident of NIC Layout,

¶67

12 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶69

Konasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.9. The sixth respondent has also filed similar objections.

¶70

The petitioner, apart from filing the objections, has pursued with the concerned for issuance of a proper Residence Certificate and for correction of the Certificate issued earlier filing different representation with the revenue authorities but no action is taken until the sixth respondent is appointed. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she should be selected over the sixth respondent because she can demonstrate that she is a resident of NIC Layout, Konasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.9, this Court finds considerable force in the submission on behalf of the sixth respondent that the dispositive factor must be the details as furnished as of the date of the application. The petitioner cannot be permitted to correct the details to improve upon her eligibility. As such, inter se the fifth and sixth respondents, the

¶71

13 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶73

petitioner cannot prevail as the sixth respondent had furnished all the details without any error.

¶74

The petitioner irrefutably had filed an application without indicating the Ward but enclosing a Certificate showing that she is a resident of Konasagara Road, Molakalmuru Taluk, Ward No.10, which is subsequently shown to be incorrect. This Court must give due weightage to the fact that the respondents have not acted on the petitioner’s representations until the sixth respondent is appointed. The inspection on the representation is conducted under the mahazar the very day after the sixth respondent reports to duty with the impugned order. The fact that the sixth respondent’s appointment on 01.12.2023 and the conduct of inspection for the purposes of verifying the petitioner’s residence on the next date is very strong circumstance to be dismissed as a mere coincidence.

¶75

14 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶77

Further, the Selection Committee has not assigned any reason to overlook the petitioner's case or for not taking any action to ascertain whether the petitioner was indeed a resident of the particular Ward because the decision is to be finalized after due deliberations. This Court must consider all the circumstances, and when considered, this Court opines that the petitioner has made out a semblance of case. The State has now placed on record that the post of Anganwadi Assistant Post in Pattana Panchayati, Ward No.5 called Bedarakannappa, Ward No.5, Anganwadi Centre is vacant and within a distance of 1 km from the Anganwadi Centre at NIC Layout, Ward No.9.

¶78

In the peculiarities of the case, and to balance interest, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of directing the second respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga - to issue the appointment orders to the

¶79

15 -

¶80

NC: 2024:KHC:27170 WP No. 2335 of 2024

¶81

petitioner as an Anganwadi Assistant in Pattana Panchayati, Ward No.5 called Bedarakannappa, Ward No.5, Anganwadi Centre within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner, to avail the benefit of this direction for a time bound issuance, shall be liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the second respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶82

SD/JUDGE

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

¶84

Smt Gowramma a v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma a 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

Siddartha Vs Union of India

Sri. Krishna Vs the Commissioner

Sri Chandrashekar Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manikanta. N Vs the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Sri C N Narayan Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Sri. Puran Kumar Agarwalla Vs the Union of India