Dismissed

Patima W/O Babusab Yaklaspur v. the Executive Officer

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/66201/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for an Anganwadi Helper post. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility as her application lacked a residential certificate and the post was reserved for SC/ST candidates. Additionally, the impugned order was over 13 years old.

What the court decided

AI extract

Patima W/O Babusab Yaklaspur Vs the Executive Officer — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10867 WP No. 66201 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.66201 OF 2012(S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PATIMA W/O. BABUSAB YAKLASPUR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NAVEBHAVANUR, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG – 582 117.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI V. R. PATIL AND SRI S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PATTAN PANCHAYAT SHIRHATTI AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE ANGANWADI WORKER, SHIRAHATTI – 582 117.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

TALUKA SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, SHIRATTI AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE, ANGANAWADI WORKER, SHIRAHATTI – 582 217.

¶16

TALUKA MEDICAL OFFICER, SHIRATTI TALUAK AND MEMBER OF TALUKA ANGANAWADI WORKER, SHIRHATTI – 582 117.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WOMAN AND CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, GADAG, DIST: GADAG

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10867 WP No. 66201 of 2012

¶20

AND PRESIDENT SELECTION COMMITTEE, ANGANAWADI WORKER, SHIRAHATTI – 582 101.

¶21

CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SHIRAHATTI CUM MEMBER SECRETARY OF SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ANGANAWADI WORKERS SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG – 582 117.

¶22

SMT. GEETAVVA D/O. DEVAPPA KODLI, AGE: 26 YEARS, R/O: NAVEBHAVANUR, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG – 582 117.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

¶25

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO APPROPRIATE WRIT AND DECLARE THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2012 IS PASSED BY THE 1 TO 5 RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2012 PASSED BY THE 1 TO 5 RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP T HIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10867 WP No. 66201 of 2012

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)

¶32

This writ petition is filed challenging order dated 18.06.2012, rejecting petitioner’s candidature and selection of respondent no.6 as Anganwadi Helper of Navebhavanur Anganwadi Centre, Shirhatti Taluk, Gadag District.

¶33

Sri S. S. Koliwad, learned counsel for petitioner

¶34

submitted that petitioner was a widow who had secured 60.4% marks in 4^th standard as such, was eligible for being selected as Anganwadi Helper. It was submitted, in pursuance of notification dated 4.8.2011 at Annexure-B, she had filed application in respect of Navebhavanur Anganwadi Centre. Though, she was only widow candidate and Government guidelines contemplated priority in selection to widows, respondents included name of respondent no.6 in provisional selection list. It was

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10867 WP No. 66201 of 2012

¶37

submitted, several objections were received against said selection list.

¶38

However, without proper verification,

¶39

respondents proceeded to issue final selection list. Since, selection of respondent no.6 was ignoring valid candidature of petitioner, same was arbitrary and illegal. On said ground, sought for allowing Writ Petition.

¶40

On other hand, Sri P.N. Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents no. 1 to 5 sought to oppose Writ Petition.

¶41

At outset, it was submitted, as per proceedings of Selection Committee at Annexure-D, at time of issuance of provisional selection list, Committee noted that amongst four applications received, petitioner’s application was rejected on ground that it did not accompany residential certificate and since, respondent no.6 was found to be highest on merit among other applicants, her name was ordered to be included in provisional selection list. It was submitted, even thereafter petitioner does not appear to

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10867 WP No. 66201 of 2012

¶43

have filed objections. Selection Committee considered objections received and finding them untenable, rejected same and proceeded to notify name of respondent no.6 in final selection list.

¶44

It was further submitted that Anganwadi Helper post in respect of Navebhavanur Anganwadi Centre was reserved for SC/ST candidates. Since, petitioner did not fall within said category, her candidature in any case would require to be rejected. Hence, there was no merit in Writ Petition and sought for dismissal of Writ Petition.

¶45

Heard learned counsel and perused Writ Petition record.

¶46

From above, question that would require consideration is whether rejection of petitioner’s candidature and selection of respondent no.6 as Anganwadi Helper in respect of Navebhavanur Anganwadi Centre is illegal or arbitrary and calls for interference.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10867 WP No. 66201 of 2012

¶49

Issuance of notification calling for applications for selection of Anganwadi Helper at Navebhavanur Anganwadi Centre as per notification dated 4.8.2011 and petitioner filing application in response thereto, are not in dispute. While, petitioner submits that she had enclosed all necessary documents including residential certificate, respondents rejected her application on ground of nonaccompaniment of valid residential certificate. As per proceedings of Committee at Annexure-D, reason for rejection would relate to contentions of respondents. Even though petitioner claims that residential certificate was enclosed, copy of same is not produced along with Writ Petition, though that was specific reason for rejection. Further after inclusion of name of respondent no.6 in provision selection list, petitioner does not appear to have filed objections. Objections received by others are duly considered and rejected.

¶50

Under such circumstance, since petitioner has failed to establish that she was eligible and her application

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10867 WP No. 66201 of 2012

¶53

was in order, there can be no interference with selection of respondent no.6 process. It is also seen impugned has aged more than 13 years and there was no interim order granted in Writ Petition.

¶54

For above reasons, Writ Petition is without

¶55

merit and dismissed.

¶56

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶57

VB/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Patima W/O Babusab Yaklaspur v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Patima W/O Babusab Yaklaspur v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Husensab S/O Abdulsab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Kishore S/O Narayan Naralikar Vs the Deputy Registrar of

D I Siddique S/O Imamsab Siddique Vs the Commissioner

Ambika S. D/O. Rajashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

The Managing Trustee Vs Union of India

Mrs Shivamma Siddharth Bidari Aliasshivamma Raju Dodamani Vs the State of Karnataka