Karnataka High Court
Kavitha L C vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.15652/2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
KAVITHA L C W/O ASHOK
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O GONDI MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
MUDALAHIPPE POST
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573211.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S V PRAKASH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE
DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU -560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN 573201.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE
DEPARTMENT
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN- 573201.
4. THE PLANNING OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE CHILD WELFARE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
2
HOLENARASIPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT -573211.
5. M/S. PAVITHRA G S
W/O SHANKRAPPAA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/O GONDIMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT- 573211.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V. RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1-R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 21.01.2020/28.01.2020 PASSED BY THE R4
THEREBY RE-INVITING THE POST OF ANGANWADI WORKER IN
RESPECT OF GONDI MALLENAHALLI ANGANWADI CENTER
COMING WITH MALLAPPANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-T AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner an aspirant for the post of Anganwadi Worker is before this Court challenging the appointment of 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District, under order bearing No.Oo.Ni.Ha/ICD/Anka/Ma/2014-15 dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure-L) and for consequential reliefs.
2. Heard Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the writ petition papers. 3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent under Annexure-C notification dated 05.07.2013 invited applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker in various Villages including that of Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner being eligible submitted her application to the post of Anganwadi Worker, Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre with all the relevant documents. Learned counsel would submit that on 03.09.2013 provisional select list was published and it indicated selection of one Smt. Saraswathi as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. It is submitted that there was no appointment in pursuance to notice dated 05.07.2013 to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre and without assigning any reason and without canceling the earlier notification dated 05.07.2013, it is submitted that fresh notification dated 25.09.2013 was issued inviting applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi 4 Centre. The petitioner had not applied in pursuance to the second notification. Pursuant to the second notification dated 25.09.2013, the 5th respondent was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.17963/2014 seeking for a direction to consider her representation and to pass appropriate order as per earlier notification dated 05.07.2013. This Court by order dated 06.12.2019 disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents to pass orders furnishing necessary details and communicate the decision to the petitioner. As the respondents failed to comply with the said order, the petitioner filed CCC No.808/2021 wherein the respondents placed on record endorsement (Annexure- T) dated 21.01.2020 and stated that since the petitioner had failed to produce residential certificate her candidature was rejected. Challenging the said endorsement (Annexure-T) dated 21.01.2020 as well as seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in 5 pursuance to the first notification dated 05.07.2013, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel contends that non-assigning any reason for abandoning the first notification dated 05.07.2013 and the action of the respondents in issuing second notification dated 25.09.2013 to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel would submit that in pursuance to the first notification dated 05.07.2013, the petitioner was the more merited candidate and she ought to have been selected as Anganwadi Worker, but no reasons are assigned to abandon the process and to issue fresh notification dated 25.09.2013 to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. Since the petitioner was more meritorious candidate in pursuance to the notification dated 05.07.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the 6 respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre.
5. Admittedly the petitioner was applicant to the post of Anganwadi Worker of Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre in pursuance to the notification (Annexure-C) dated 05.07.2013. For the reasons assigned in the endorsement (Annexure-T) dated 21.01.2020 the Selection Committee took decision to initiate fresh recruitment process and issued notification dated 25.09.2013 inviting fresh applications to fill the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. The endorsement would disclose that the respondents had published provisional select list on 03.09.2013 and one Smt. Kavitha had filed objections. Considering the said objections, the Selection Committee took decision to initiate fresh recruitment process. In pursuance to the second notification dated 25.09.2013, the petitioner failed to submit her application and in the said selection process, the 5th respondent is selected and appointed as Anganwadi 7 Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre on 19.05.2014. The 5th respondent is working as Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Village for more than eight years. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by issuance of second notification i.e., 25.09.2013 without assigning any reasons, it was open for the petitioner to challenge the second notification dated 25.09.2013 in the Writ Petition No.17963/2014. The petitioner had prayed only for consideration of her representation and the petitioner had not challenged the fresh notification dated 25.09.2013, issued calling fresh applications. Further, the petitioner failed to participate in the selection process in pursuance to the second notification dated 25.09.2013. It is not open at this stage for the petitioner to seek appointment based on the first notification dated 05.07.2013, since appointment in pursuance to second notification has already taken place and appointed candidate is working for more than eight years.
8
6. Hence for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition stands rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE NG* CT:bms