Dismissed

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

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2024WP/77422/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging selection of respondent as Anganawadi Worker despite petitioner being eligible for physically handicapped quota. Court found respondent superior in disability percentage and educational marks. Petition dismissed as unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no appointment ordered for the petitioner.

Ambika S. D/O. Rajashekara Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10889 WP No. 77422 of 2013

¶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. 77422 OF 2013 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KUM. AMBIKA S. D/O. RAJASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC:NIL, M. KALLAHALLI POST, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ARAVIND H. (THROUGH V C) & SRI JAYAVANT SAVAGAON, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STREESEVENIKETHAN COMPOUND, DEVINAGAR, BALLARI.

¶17

THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10889 WP No. 77422 of 2013

¶20

HOOVINAHADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶21

KUM. SHASHIKALA D/O. K. VEERANAGOWDA, AGE: 23 YEARS, M. KALLAHALLI POST, HADAGALI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS. TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, QUASH THE ORDER NO.UUNIBHA/MAMAAAE/AMKAAKA/AYKE/2012-12/4801 DATED 24.11.2012 / 11.01.2013 (ANNEXURE-P) ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT APPOINTING 5^TH RESPONDENT AS ANGANAWADI TEACHER OF M. KALLAHALLI ANGANAWADI CENTRE. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER UNDER PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED QUOTA AND ISSUE APPOINTMENT ORDERS TO THE APPLICANT AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10889 WP No. 77422 of 2013

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Challenging order dated 24.11.2012 / 11.01.2013 issued by respondent no.3 at Annexure-P appointing respondent no.5 as Anganawadi Worker of M.Kallahalli Anganawadi Center, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

Sri Aravind H. learned counsel appeared through video conferencing and Sri Jayavant Savagaon, learned counsel who appeared physically for petitioner submitted that petitioner had passed SSLC in year 2003 and was holder of a physical disability card. It was submitted that she belonged to Below Poverty Line (‘BPL’ for short) family and as such eligible for selection as Anganawadi Worker. It was submitted, respondents had issued notification calling for applications for selection of Anganawadi Workers of various Anganawadi Centers including M.Kallahalli Anganawadi Center. Petitioner had filed application in pursuance of same by appending copies of Physical Handicapped Certificate, Residential Certificate etc., as required.

¶30

Though petitioner was eligible and belonged to a family of BPL, entitled for preference over respondent no.5, who was not even from same village, respondents issued

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10889 WP No. 77422 of 2013

¶33

provisional selection list on 21.09.2012 as per Annexure-L showing name of respondent no.5 as selected candidate.

¶34

Aggrieved, petitioner filed objections as per Annexure-M on 28.09.2012. In objections, it was contended that Physical Disability Certificate relied upon by respondent no.5, was not genuine. And fact that, respondent no.5 belonged to Above Poverty Line (“APL” for short) family was also highlighted. Without proper consideration, respondents had proceeded to issue impugned order selecting respondent no.5 on 11.01.2013 as per Annexure-P. It was submitted, since proper parameters for selection were not applied, selection of respondent no.5 was faulted and hence, sought for allowing petition.

¶35

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents no.1 to 4 and Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for respondent no.5, sought to oppose writ petition.

¶36

Learned counsel submitted, percentage of physical disability suffered by respondent no.5 was higher than that of petitioner. Therefore, Selection Committee

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:10889 WP No. 77422 of 2013

¶38

rightly overruled objections filed by petitioner and proceeded to issue selection list and same did not call for interference.

¶39

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶40

records.

¶41

From above, it is seen that petitioner is challenging selection of respondent no.5 as Anganawadi Worker on account of same being contrary to Selection guidelines contained in Annexure-J.

¶42

From Annexure-F, Disability Card of petitioner, it is seen that she is certified to be suffering from 45% locomotor disability. Her percentage of marks at SSLC is 38.24%. Annexure-G would indicate that she belongs to BPL family.

¶43

As against same, respondent no.5 passed SSLC with 47.68% and Physical Disability Card produced by respondent no.5 would indicate her disability was at 50%. On both counts, respondent no.5 would be higher in merit than petitioner.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC-D:10889 WP No. 77422 of 2013

¶46

Though a contention regarding respondent no.5 belonging to APL family and petitioner belonging to BPL is urged, perusal of Selection Guidelines do not stipulate such criteria insofar as Anganawadi Workers are concerned. Even contention that respondent no.5 did not belong to M.Kallahalli village, it is seen, said contention is not urged in objections at Annexure-M. Therefore, same can at best be spacious and unsubstantiated.

¶47

In view of above, there is no merit in writ petition. It is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

CT-ASC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambika S. D/O. Rajashekara 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

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

Patima W/O Babusab Yaklaspur Vs the Executive Officer

The Managing Trustee Vs Union of India

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