Disposed

Smt Geetha B a Haveri v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2024WP/4755/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Anganwadi Helper challenged non-consideration of her candidature for promotion to Anganwadi Teacher and sought relaxation of the five-year service requirement under a 03.12.2022 policy. The court held eligibility must be judged by the policy prevailing on the notification date, declined relaxation, and disposed of the petition without prejudice to future consideration.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Geetha B a Haveri Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22573 WP No. 4755 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4755 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT GEETHA B A HAVERI W/O T.R. JAMBUNATH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ANGANWADI HELPER, BUDIHAL VILLAGE, NITTUR POST, MALEBENNUR HOBLI, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577530.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.V.ASHWINI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE.

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22573 WP No. 4755 of 2024

¶18

DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE.

¶19

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO) HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; R2-SERVED)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE R4 IN CASE NO. WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-M BY ALLOWING THE WP; QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE R4 IN CASE NO. WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-F BY ALLOWING THE WP.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner's cause for the present petition is

¶26

because her candidature for posting as an " Anganwadi Teacher ", is not considered, and the petition is in the context stated hereafter. The petitioner has also sought for directions to the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:22573 WP No. 4755 of 2024

¶29

respondents to consider her candidature relaxing one of the conditions contemplated vide Policy notified on 03.12.2022, amongst others, for promotions.

¶30

Sri. M. V. Ashwini, the learned counsel for

¶31

the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was appointed on 26.06.2018 and according to the Guidelines prevailed then, the promotions ought to have been granted if a particular candidate completed three years of service. Sri. Prince Isac, the learned Additional Government Advocate, points out that such Guidelines is superseded by fresh Guidelines notified on 03.12.2022 and in terms of this later Guidelines, promotions could be granted only on completion of five years of minimum service subject to the other conditions.

¶32

Sri. Prince Isac submits that the petitioner had not completed five years as of the date of the Notification dated 24.05.2023 and therefore, her candidature is not considered. In rejoinder,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:22573 WP No. 4755 of 2024

¶35

Sri. M. V. Ashwini submits that given that the petitioner has missed the opportunity only by a month or two, this Court may, in the peculiar circumstances, consider issuing directions to grant promotion.

¶36

These submissions are considered. The petitioner could assert a right to promotion only if she could establish that she was duly qualified in terms of the extent policy as of the date of the notification calling for the applications and not otherwise. Therefore, the petitioner's cause cannot be accepted and the request for directions for relaxation cannot also be accepted because that could result in denial of a right to somebody, who would otherwise be entitled to. Therefore, the petition must be disposed of but observing that this disposal must not in any manner affect the petitioner's right to seek the promotion as and when the next Notification is issued.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:22573 WP No. 4755 of 2024

¶39

The petition is disposed of accordingly

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Smt Geetha B a Haveri v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Geetha B a Haveri v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum M Sujatha Vs the Director (a & Hr)

M Mujibulla Vs Union of India

Dr G M Alexander Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S B Hoovamma W/O Nanjesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N.C. Cheluvaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Jai Madegowda Vs the Vice Chancellor