Partly allowed¶69

Smt. Sumangala D/O Shivappa Hallikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2025WP/103171/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ASHA worker selection; Gram Panchayat recommendation quashed; age criterion 25 to 45; married women preference; relaxation of age and educational qualification only when no suitable woman available; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; WP No. 103171 of 2017; Savadi village, Ron taluk, Gadag district; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; reconsideration of applications within three months; Annexure-N resolution dated 24.08.2016.

What did the court decide?

Impugned resolution dated 24.08.2016 passed by respondent No.5 selecting respondent Nos.6 and 7 as Asha workers (Annexure-N) quashed; respondent Nos.4 and 5 directed to reconsider the applications of the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7 in light of the observations, compliance within three months. ¶69

Smt. Sumangala D/O Shivappa Hallikeri Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the resolution/recommendation of respondent No.5 selecting respondent Nos.6 and 7 as Asha workers, who were below the prescribed age criteria, was contrary to the notified selection guidelines and liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The guidelines require preference to married women in the age group of 25 to 45; respondent Nos.6 and 7, admittedly 18 and 24 years of age at the time of recommendation, did not come within the criteria of selection, and the Gram Panchayat could not have recommended their names while the petitioner was available.

¶61

Ratio / Principle

Relaxation of the educational qualification and age criteria under the selection guidelines is an exception available only when no suitable woman with the requisite qualification is available in the area among that particular vulnerable group; it cannot be the norm.

¶58

Key takeaways

The petitioner's candidature cannot be turned down on the score that she is overaged, since at the relevant point in time she was of appropriate age and respondent Nos.6 and 7 were underage.ratio¶62
The Gram Panchayat must redo the exercise of recommendation of respondent Nos.6 and 7, and while doing so consider the name of the petitioner as well, as at the relevant point in time she was eligible on all fours qua the criteria for selection.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an aspirant ASHA worker challenging the resolution dated 24.08.2016 of the Panchayat Development Officer, Gram Panchayath Savadi (respondent No.5) recommending respondent Nos.6 and 7 (then aged 18 and 24) for appointment as ASHA workers in Savadi village, Ron taluk, Gadag district. The Court held that the notified selection criteria require the ASHA worker to be a woman resident of the village/vulnerable class, married, widow, divorced or separated, preferably in the age group of 25 to 45, and that relaxation of the age and educational qualification criteria is an exception available only when no suitable woman with the requisite qualification is available in the area among that particular vulnerable group - it cannot be the norm. Since the petitioner, then 38 years old and married, was available and eligible on all fours qua the selection criteria, the recommendation of underage candidates could not stand. The impugned resolution (Annexure-N) was quashed and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were directed to reconsider the applications of the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7 bearing in mind the Court's observations, with compliance within three months. Petition allowed-in-part.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 103171 OF 2017 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUMANGALA D/O. SHIVAPPA HALLIKERI, @ SMT. SUMANGALA W/O ANDAPPA KADIYAVAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL R/O: SAVADI VILLAGE, TALUK RON, DISTRICT: GADAG.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Digitally signed byVISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.18 11:21:54 +0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGLURU.

¶16

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RURAL WELFARE SERVICES OFFICER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES OFFICE, ANANDRAO CIRLCE, BENGALURU.

¶17

THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY GADAG, DISTRICT: GADAG.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶20

THE TALUK HEALTH OFFICE, TALUK HOSPITAL COMPOUND RON, TALUK: RON, DISTRICT: GADAG.

¶21

THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYATH SAVADI, TALUK: RON, DISTRICT: GADAG.

¶22

SMT. VIJAYALAXMI D/O. BASAVARAJ NITTALI, @ SMT. VIJAYLAXMI W/O. BALAPPA DALAVAYI, AGE:19 YEARS, OCC: NOW SELECTED AS ASHA WORKER, R/O: SAVADI VILLAGE, TALUK: RON, DISTRICT: GADAG.

¶23

SMT. MANGALA D/O SHANKARAPPA HADAPAD, @ SMT. MANGALA W/O MALLAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NOW SELECTED AS ASHA WORKER, R/O: SAVADI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶24

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYATH, RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4, SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R7, NOTICE TO R5, R6 AND R8 ARE SERVED)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RESOLUTION DATED 24.08.2016 PASSED BY THE 5^TH RESPONDENT WHEREIN SELECTED THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 AS ASHA WORKER AS SAVADI VILLAGE VIDE ANNEXURE-N. TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶29

MANDAMUS DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SELECT THE PETITIONER AS ASHA WORKER AT SAVADI VILLAGE IN RON TALUK OF GADAG DISTRICT. TO PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER AS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE AWARD OF COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶33

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a resolution which seeks to recommend the appointment of respondent Nos.6 and 7 as Asha workers in Savadi village, Taluka Ron, District Gadag.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond appearing for petitioner and learned HCGP-Sri.Kritilatha R. Patil appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and learned counsel Sri.Anand R. Kolli appearing for respondent No.7.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶36

Facts in brief germane are as follows

¶37

Asha workers were sought to be appointed in precincts of the Gram Panchayat. In furtherance thereof the 2^nd respondent the Director of the National Rural Welfare Services, notifies certain guidelines for appointment of the aforesaid workers. Pursuant to the notification of the said guidelines, respective Gram Panchayat issued certain further guidelines seeking for appointment of Asha workers. The issue in the lis revolves thereon. The petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7 among other the finding themselves eligible pursuant to the notification applied for the post of Asha worker in the aforesaid village. After the process of selection, it transpires that the Gram Panchayat resolves to recommend the names of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 to be appointed as Asha workers. The recommendation has driven the petitioner to the doors of this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel Sri.H.M.Dharigond

¶39

representing the petitioners would vehemently contend

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶42

that even the recommendation of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State for

¶43

the purpose of selection of Asha worker, which clearly depicts, a worker should be between 25 to 45 years, apart from the fact that they should be married. The ones, who are now sought to be selected by the resolution/recommendation are 18 years and 24 years respectively, which according to the learned counsel is contrary to the notification.

¶44

Learned counsel Sri.Anand R. Kolli representing the respondent No.7 would however seek to defend the action on the score that it is only a recommendation and the direction will issued to the respondent No.2 or the respondent No.4 as the case would be to consider in terms of the guidelines.

¶45

Learned HCGP would also seek to defend the action of recommending respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the score that the guidelines permit relaxation of age and educational qualification. Therefore would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶48

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶49

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue revolves around the selection criteria for the post of Asha worker in the village aforesaid as notified. I therefore deem it appropriate the notice of criteria for selection, it reads as follows:

¶50

The educational and age criteria can be relaxed if no suitable woman with this qualification is available in the area and among that particular vulnerable group.

¶51

A balance between representation of marginalized and education should be maintained.

¶52

She should have family and social support to enable her to find the time to carry out her tasks.

¶53

Adequate representation from disadvantaged population groups should be ensured to serve such groups better.

¶54

Existing women community workers under other schemes like-urban ASHs or link workers under NRHM or RCH II, JnNURM, SJSRY etc. may be given preference provided they meet the residency, age and educational criteria mentioned above and are able to provide time for their activities”

¶55

The criteria of selection would be that the Asha

¶56

worker must be a woman, resident of a slum or vulnerable

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶58

class belonging to that particular village. She should be married or widow or lady divorced or separated and, preferably in the age group of 25 to 45. No doubt the educational qualification and age criteria, as submitted by the learned HCGP, can be relaxed. It cannot be the norm. It can only be when there is no suitable woman, with the qualification available, in the area among that particular group.

¶59

The petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7 apply to the post of Asha worker in Savadi Village, Ron Taluk, Gadag Distrct, coming within the precincts of the Savadi Gram Panchayat. The recommendation is made by the Panchayat to select respondent Nos.6 and 7. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 admittedly are 18 years and 24 years of age, at the time when the recommendation was made. The petitioner was 38 years old and married. The clause in the guideline as afore-quoted above would clearly indicate that preference should be given to married women and between the age 25 to 45. Relaxation is available only if no qualified woman is available for

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶61

selection. The petitioner was at all times available. Therefore it is un-understandable as to how the Gram Panchayat could have recommend the names of respondent Nos.6 and 7, to be appointed to the post of Asha worker, as admittedly they need not come within the criteria of selection, afore-noted.

¶62

Therefore on this short ground and admitted fact, that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 were at the relevant point in time, 18 and 24 years of age, the candidature of petitioner cannot be turned down on the score that she is

¶63

overaged, as at the relevant point in time she was of appropriate age and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 were underaged. Though the respondent No.7 was married, and not the respondent No.6, the Gram Panchayat will have to redo the exercise of recommendation of respondent Nos.6 and 7, while so doing consider the name of petitioner as well to the post of Asha worker, as at the relevant point in time, was eligible on all fours, qua the criteria for selection.

¶64

For the aforesaid reasons the following:

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2640 WP No. 103171 of 2017

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The petition allowed-in-part.

¶69

(ii) The impugned resolution dated 24.08.2016 passed by respondent No.5 which selected the respondent Nos.6 and 7 as Asha worker at Savadi village vide Annexure-N stands quashed.

¶70

(iii) The respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall now reconsider the applications of the petitioner, respondent Nos.6 and 7 bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

¶71

(iv) The reconsideration and the necessary action shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not earlier.

¶72

Ordered accordingly.

¶73

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶74

RHR/-

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Smt. Sumangala D/O Shivappa Hallikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sumangala D/O Shivappa Hallikeri v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha B N D/O B Nagendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Umesh S/O Mahadevbhat Airsangh Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Sri Subhas S/O Tirakappa Mule Vs the Management of Nwkrtc

Sri Ramesh S/O Sadashiv Ittappanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.G.Malleshappa S/O G. Thimmappa Vs the State Bank of India

Dr.S.S.Naregal Vs the Registrar