Chaitra Shambanna Vaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

JAYANTI D/O. SIDDAPPA VADDAR SMT. JAYANTI W/O. HANUMAYYA VADDAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BYAGAWADI, POST. HERUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581148.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. H.N.GULARADDI AND SRI. G.D.PATIL, ADV. FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS THE ANGANWADI WORKER OF NAGANUR PLOT ANGANWADI CENTER IN MUNDGOD TALUKA KARWAR DISTRICT BY AN ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 27/05/2025 AT NO.�� /2025-26/587 VIDE ANNEXURE-V TO THE WRIT PETITION; CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS THE ANGANWADI WORKER OF NAGANUR PLOT ANGANWADI CENTER IN MUNDGOD TALUKA AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC-D:185 WP No. 104294 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner has called in question the legality of the appointment order dated 27.05.2025, whereby respondent No.4 came to be appointed as an Anganwadi Worker of Nagnoor plot, Anganwadi Center, Mundgod Taluk.

¶32

Brief Facts :

¶33

The post of AnganWadi Worker for Nagnoor plot, Anganwadi Center was notified by the competent authority by notification dated 07.03.2025. The petitioner applied for the said post claiming to be the permanent resident of Naganoor Village, residing in the close proximity to the said Anganwadi Center and possessing the requisite educational qualification. Respondent No.4 also applied and was shown as selected in the provisional list on basis of the higher marks. The petitioner filed objections to the provisional list, specifically contending that respondent No.4 was married and residing in Byagawadi Village, Hangal Taluk, Haveri District, and therefore was not a local resident as required

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC-D:185 WP No. 104294 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

under the guidelines. The authorities issued appointment order dated 27.05.2025 in favour of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents/State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the residence within Anganwadi area is a foundational eligibility condition, not a preference. Respondent No.4, after her marriage on 17.05.2023 shifted her residence to her husband's village in Haveri District. The Aadhar card, Marriage Certificate and Sakala proceedings clearly establish that respondent No.4 did not possess a valid residential certificate as on the date of filing of the application. The selection based solely on marks, is contrary to the modified guidelines dated 18.11.2024.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC-D:185 WP No. 104294 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that the selection and appointment were made in accordance with the Government Guidelines. It is submitted that respondent No.4 was selected on merit and having secured the highest marks and that the Selection Committee followed the prescribed procedure in preparing the provisional and the final selection list. It is contended that the residence of respondent No.4 was under consideration by the revenue authorities, and therefore the appointment cannot be faulted with merely on the ground that the residential certificate proceedings were pending. It is contended that the appointment does not suffer from arbitrariness. No case is made out for warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 is the native of HanumapuraNagnoor area and that her residence in the said village was genuine and continuous. It is contended that the marriage

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC-D:185 WP No. 104294 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

does not automatically extinguish the residence of a woman in a parental house and therefore, reliance placed on a marital status and a husband's place of residence is misconceived. It is asserted that respondent No.4 has produced necessary documents to establish her residence and that any discrepancies were procedural in nature, which were already under re-consideration pursuant to the Assistant Commissioner's remand order. It is further contended that the spot verification and revenue proceedings are pending final adjudication. Until a final decision, has been taken by the Tahasildar, the petitioner cannot seek for quashing of the appointment. It is contended that she possessed higher qualification and she has secured more marks than the petitioner and was rightly selected and the petitioner has failed to establish any mala fides or illegality in the selection process warranting any interference.

¶49

This Court has carefully considered the

¶50

contentions urged and perused the material on record. The

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC-D:185 WP No. 104294 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

controversy in the present writ petition centers around the eligibility of respondent No.4, with reference to the mandatory residence requirement prescribed under the applicable Government Guidelines governing appointment of Anganwadi workers.

¶55

Plain reading of the guidelines makes it

¶56

abundantly clear, that local residence is not merely a preference but a mandatory eligibility condition, and therefore, the candidate must establish continuous residence in the concerned village/Anganwadi area for not less than 3 years prior to the date of the application.

¶57

In the present case, the material on record unequivocally shows that respondent No.4 did not satisfy the mandatory requirement. The records disclose that the application for residential certificate itself was submitted only on 30.05.2025 and the Tahasildar rejected the application on 12.06.2025. The said rejection was carried in appeal and the Assistant Commissioner remanded the

¶58

8 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC-D:185 WP No. 104294 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

matter to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration. The documents produced by respondent No.4 themselves disclose that the marriage was solemnized on 17.05.2023, the husband's residence at Byagawadi, Hangal taluk, Haveri District and further the proceedings showing the rejection of the residential certificate application, all these documents cumulatively established that respondent No.4 did not possess a valid subsisting residence in Nagnoor-Hanumapur as on the date of the application. Any attempt to establish residence subsequent to the appointment is of no legal consequence. Eligibility must exist on the cut off date and not thereafter.

¶62

It is a settled law that eligibility conditions must be fulfilled. As on the cut-off date, and a subsequent enquiry, remand or pending reconsideration cannot cure a foundational ineligibility. When the guidelines explicitly require 3 years prior continuous residence, the absence of even a subsisting residence certificate as on the date of application renders respondent No.4 wholly ineligible.

¶63

9 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:185 WP No. 104294 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Despite this, the appointing authority proceeded to appoint respondent No.4 solely on basis of the marks, without examining whether she has satisfied the foundational requirement of 3 years continuous local residence and without dealing with the specific objections local residence. Accordingly this Court holds that the impugned appointment is vitiated and suffers from perversity and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶68

(ii) The appointment dated 27.05.2025 appointing respondent No.4 as an Anganwadi Worker of Nagnoor plot Anganwadi center is hereby quashed.

¶69

(iii) Respondents/State are directed to reconsider the selection strictly in accordance with the modified guidelines dated 18.11.2024, keeping in view the requirement of including that of residence as on the date of the application.

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC-D:185 WP No. 104294 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

(iv) The entire exercise shall be completed within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶74

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶75

EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Chaitra Shambanna Vaddar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitra Shambanna Vaddar 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

Dr N Maruti Rao Vs the Rani Channamma University

Siddalingappa S/O Late Hampanna Kalagatti Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Jagadguru Sanganabasava Swamiji Vs the Tahasildar

Shri. Abhay Krishnarao Yalagi Vs the Commissioner

Meghal D/O Jyotin Gandhi Vs Deputy Commissioner

Futermal S/O Babulal Jain Vs the Commissioner