Disposed

Kumari K S Tejavathy v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/27955/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A woman selected as Anganwadi Worker had wrongly declared 75% disability in her application; her appointment was cancelled. A Medical Board confirmed her disability was 50%. The Court quashed the cancellation orders, restored her service subject to refund of disability pension drawn, and directed discontinuance of the pension.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation orders quashed; petitioner's services restored subject to refund of disability pension from 27.07.2022 within three months; pension discontinued.

Kumari K S Tejavathy Vs the Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 27955 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

KUMARI K.S. TEJAVATHY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O SANNA SOMACAHRI RESIDENT OF KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE GANJIGERE POST BOOKANAKERE HOBLI K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001.

¶10

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

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571401.

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT ST JPHN AMBULANCE ASSN (INDIA) BUILDING 1^ST FLOOR OFF CARMEL CONVENT ROAD SUBHASH NAGAR MANDYA - 571 401.

¶13

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY ANGANWADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶16

SMT RAMYA B

¶17

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O YOGESH K S R/AT KURUBAHALLI VILLAGE GANJIGERE POST BOOKANAKERE HOBLI K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI ROOPESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/11/2023 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN NO. PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ALSO THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 02/12/2023 PASSED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-H1.ii) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R3 TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS WAS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/11/2023 PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has called in question an order bearing No.

¶25

G¤ªÀÄA/L¹r/CA.PÁ.PÀ/ PÀ.©.2023-24/917 dated 27.11.2023 passed by

¶26

respondent No. 3 and also the consequent order bearing No. ²CAiÉÆÃ/PÉDgï¥ÉÃ/CA.PÁ. dated 02.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.4. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to continue her service as it existed prior to the impugned order dated 27.11.2023

¶27

passed by the respondent No.3.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶30

The petitioner contends that a notification dated 05.12.2018 was issued by the respondent No.4 inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of Anganwadi Workers of Margonahalli Village and Kurubarahalli Village, under the general category. Those persons who suffered physical disability of less than 60% were entitled to apply. There were six candidates including the petitioner and respondent No.5. In so far as candidates suffering from disability, it is contended that the R-1 had issued a government order prescribing guidelines and eligibility criteria for appointment of Anganawadi workers/assistants. It is contended that candidates who suffered from disability were bound to furnish a disability certificate which did not indicate a certificate for disability of pension. It also prescribed that the decision of the selection committee shall be final.

¶31

The petitioner contends that she was suffering from disability, which was certified by the competent authority on 15.06.2009 at 50%. However, when she submitted her application seeking appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker she had mistakenly mentioned the percentage of disability at 75%, which was contrary to the certificate issued

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶34

by the Medical Board on 15.06.2009. On coming know of the

¶35

said mistake, she submitted a representation on 16.01.2019 and enclosed a copy of the Medical Certificate to show as she was eligible to apply for the post against the notification dated 05.12.2018.

¶36

(i) The petitioner further contends that the Selection Committee did not declare the result of the selection. The R-5 filed WP.No.7372/2019 for a direction to respondent no. 2 and 4 to announce the result. The Writ Petition was disposed off on 16.07.2019 directing respondents No.2 and 4 to notify the results, if not already done. Later respondent no.3 announced the result of selection on 23.07.2021, whereby, the petitioner was selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Kurubarahalli. The Respondent No.5 challenged the selection of the petitioner in W.P.No.15775/2021. It was contended that the petitioner was suffering from physical disability, which was beyond 60%. It was contended that the Selection Committee had entertained the documents submitted by the petitioner after the last date prescribed for filing the applications and therefore she was not eligible to be selected for the post of Anganwadi Worker. This Court after perusing the documents placed on record, directed

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶39

respondent No.3 to reconsider the issue afresh and consider the documents produced as on 31.12.2018 and to take appropriate decision. However the service of the petitioner was continued until a decision was taken.

¶40

(iii) The petitioner contends that respondent No.2 held proceedings on 16.07.2023 whereat it was decided to verify all the originals of the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of filing the application. The respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to furnish the documents, which she did. However, the respondent No.3 held that the petitioner failed to furnish the relevant documents. Therefore the respondent No.2 at a meeting held on 26.10.2023 resolved to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 submitted a proposal to respondent No.3 on 06.11.2023. The respondent No.3 has passed an order dated 27.11.2023 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Later, the respondent No.4 issued an order dated 02.12.2023 appointing the respondent No.4 as the Anganwadi Worker at Kurubarahalli. Being aggrieved by the above, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was suffering from clubfoot of left lower limb and her disability did not exceed 50%. He contends that the certificate issued by the concerned competent authority dated 15.06.2009 established that the disability suffered by the petitioner was 50% and that the declaration made in the application filed pursuant to the notification that she had suffered disability to the extent of 75% was a bonafide mistake. He contends that the petitioner had secured more marks in the qualifying examination than respondent No.5. He contends that he has produced document namely, Disability Certificate which indicates that the petitioner was suffering from disability of 50% and same was not considered by respondent No.3. He, therefore contends that the petitioner could not have been relieved from services on the ground that she had suffered disability of more than 50%.

¶44

The Writ Petition is opposed by respondent No.5, who has filed detailed statement of objections contending interalia that when the petitioner filed the application, she had declared that she was suffering from disability of 75%. Therefore, she contends that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶47

post. He contends that the petitioner was drawing disability pension and in the disability certificate (Annexure-R4) for pension, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was suffering from disability of 75%. She contends that the petitioner has been inconsistent in disclosing the extent of physical disability suffered by her. Therefore, she contended that respondent No.3 rightly relieved the services of the petitioner on the ground that she was not eligible to apply to the post of Anganwadi Worker.

¶48

Learned Additional Government Advocate has also filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner had disclosed that she was suffering from 75% disability, when she submitted her application. Further she has failed to produce documents to establish that she was suffering from disability of less than 60%. Therefore, respondent No.3 had no other option than to relieve the services of the petitioner.

¶49

Since the petitioner had secured more marks in the qualifying exam than respondent No.5 and in view of the disability certificate enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure-B1 which showed that she suffered physical disability to the extent of 50%, this Court referred the petitioner for examination by

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶51

the Medical Board in terms of the order dated 23.08.2024. The Medical Board, K.R. Hospital, Mysuru has submitted a report that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 50% as she was born with a clubfoot of the left limb.

¶52

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶53

The fact that the petitioner was physically disabled is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had secured more marks in the qualifying exam than the respondent no.5. The dispute is that the petitioner while submitting the application seeking appointment as Anganwadi Worker had declared that she was suffering from 75% disability. If this was true, then the petitioner was certainly not entitled to apply against the post of Anganwadi worker. However, the petitioner had produced documents before respondent No.3 to show that she suffered from physical disability to the extent of 50%. Therefore, it is amply evident that the declaration made by the petitioner that she suffered from physical disability of 75% in her application was a mistake. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was born with a clubfoot of left limb. The Medical Board, in it's report dated

¶54

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶55

13.09.2024 has stated that the petitioner suffered from permanent disability of 50%. It is a matter of ordinary common sense that a person suffering from clubfoot cannot be considered as suffering from 75% disability. Therefore, the petitioner was eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Since she had secured more marks in the qualifying exam and since her physical disability did not exceed 60%, the petitioner deserved to be appointed as an Anganwadi worker.

¶56

However, on the one hand, the petitioner claimed that she suffers from physical disability of 50% but on the other hand she was admittedly drawing disability pension where she had declared that she was suffering from physical disability of 75%. Therefore, she cannot approbate and reprobate she is bound disability to refund back all the pension received from the State, before her appointment as the Anganwadi Worker at Krurubarahalli is continued.

¶57

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed off in the following terms:

¶58

(i) The impugned order passed by respondent no.3 dated 27.11.2023 (Annexure-H) is quashed. Consequently, order dated 02.12.2023 passed by

¶59

10 -

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶61

respondent No.4 bearing No. ²CAiÉÆÃ/PÉ.Dgï.¥ÉÃ/CAPÁ.PÀ dated 01.12.2023 (Annexsure-H1) is also quashed.

¶62

ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to restore the services of the petitioner as per the order of her appointment dated 27.11.2013. However, this is subject to condition that the petitioner shall refund the disability pension drawn by her from 27.07.2022 and onwards, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the salary drawing officer of petitioner shall deduct 50% of the salary/honorarium payable to the petitioner until the disability pension paid to petitioner is fully recovered. No interest is chargeable.

¶63

iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to inform the concerned to discontinue the disability pension paid to the petitioner as per the order bearing No. PHP.CR./2015-16 dated 15.04.2015 issued by the Tahsildar, Krishnarajpete Taluk.

¶64

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶65

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

¶66

PSG

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:39546 WP No. 27955 of 2023

¶69

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶70

[KUMARI K S TEJAVATHY VS. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS]

¶71

22.11.2024 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶72

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶73

ORAL ORDER ON I.A. NO.2/2024

¶74

I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed for correction of the order dated

¶75

24.09.2024.

¶76

Perused the application filed by the petitioner.

¶77

At page No.10 of the order dated 24.09.2024 in para No.12 ii), at line No.3, the date of appointment of the petitioner which is wrongly mentioned as "27.11.2013" shall be read as "27.11.2023". The rest of the order dated 24.09.2024 shall remain intact.

¶78

Accordingly, I.A. No.2/2024 is allowed.

¶79

This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 24.09.2024.

¶80

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶81

DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Kumari K S Tejavathy v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari K S Tejavathy v. the Principal Secretary

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 S.N. Shekar Vs the Managing Director

Somashekaraiah Vs the Executive Engineer(Elec)

Smt. Srilakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Tummala Premakumar Vs the Board of Directors

H S Madhumathi Vs State of Karnataka

Ibrahim Vs State of Karnataka