Karnataka High Court
Basamma W/O Late Siddappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 17 August, 2022
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.200443/2022 (S-RES)
Between:
Basamma W/o Late Gundappa S/o Salibhavi,
Age : 32 years, Occ : Household,
R/o Basarakod Village, Tq : Muddebihal,
Dist : Vijayapur - 586 116.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Gopalkrishna B.Yadav, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Development,
M.S.Building, Palace Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Director,
Women and Child Development Department,
Vijayapura - 586 101.
3. The Child Development Planning Officer,
Muddebihal, Dist : Vijayapura - 586 212.
4. Kaveri W/o Mallappa Patil,
Age : Major, Occ: Anganawadi Helper,
2
R/o Basarakod, Tq : Muddebihal,
Dist : Vijayapura - 586 116.
... Respondents
(By Sri Viranagouda M.Biradar, AGA for R1 to R3)
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 by quashing the order of selection of
respondent No.4 dated 10.01.2022 passed by respondent
No.2 bearing No.¸ÀA:G¤«/ªÀĪÀÄCE/L¹r/CA.¸À/ªÀiÁ£Àåv/É 2021-22/9792 as
per Annexure-G to petition in respect of Basarakod-1
village, Taluka Muddebihal, District Vijayapura and
consequently quashed the order dated 21.01.2022 bearing
No.D.¸ÀASÉå:²CAiÉÆêÀÄÄ/CA.¸À.ºÁ/2021-22/465-467 passed by
respondent No.3 authority as per Annexure-J to petition in
respect of directing respondent No.4 to join duty to post of
Anganawadi helper at Basarakod-1 Village, Taluka
Muddebihal, District Vijayapura in the interest of justice
and to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondent No.2 to replace petitioner to post of Anganwadi
helper at Basarakod-1 village, Taluka Muddebihal, District
Vijayapura in place of respondent No.4 by considering the
representations as per Annexure-E and K to the writ
petiton.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
In this case the petitioner called in question Annexure-G dated 10.01.2022 the selection list issued by respondent No.2 for the post of Anganwadi Helper wherein respondent No.4 has been selected as an Anganwadi 3 Helper to Basarkod-1 Anganwadi Center and Annexure-J dated 21.01.2022 the appointment order issued by the third respondent in favour of respondent No.4.
2. The second respondent has issued notification inviting the application to the post of Anganwadi Helper to the Basarkod-1 Anganwadi Center as per Annexure-A dated 24.02.2021. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have filed applications to the post of Anganwadi Helper to the said center.
3. As per the guidelines issued by the Government for appointment of Anganwadi Helper vide Annexure-B, the first preference has to be given to the widow who is a local resident.
4. The petitioner being widow claims to be a resident of Basarkod-1 village. The respondent No.4 is also the resident of said Basarkod-1 Village. Since the petitioner is a widow without considering her case, the respondents No.2 and 3 have considered the case of respondent No.4 and issued the impugned order dated 4 10.01.2022 vide Annexure-G. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Sri Gopalkrishna B.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the widow and resident of Basarkod-1 Village. As per the Government circular the maximum age limit is 35 years. Even though in the application the petitioner has wrongly mentioned her date of birth as 01.01.1970 along with the application the petitioner has produced the transfer certificate issued by the competent authority wherein the date of birth is mentioned as 02.09.1989. Respondents without considering the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner has wrongly rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that she has crossed the age limit. Therefore, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri Virangouda M.Biradar learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 - State has submitted that as per the parawise remarks submitted by the second respondent 5 the case of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that in the application the date of the birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 01.01.1970, as on the date of the notification she is aged about 51 years. As per the Government circular she is not entitled for appointment of Anganwadi Helper to the said Anganwadi Center. Therefore, her case has not been considered, next priority has been given to the fourth respondent as she is the resident of the same village. Hence, she was appointed.
7. Respondent No.4 is served, unrepresented.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
9. The respondent No.2 has issued a notification as per Annexure-A dated 24.02.2021 inviting the application for post of Anganwadi Helper to the Basarkod-1 Anganwadi Center. Pursuant the said notification, the petitioner has filed application as per Annexure-C for the post of Anganwadi Helper to the said Basarkod-1 6 Anganwadi Center. The fourth has also filed application for the post of Anganwadi Helper to the Basarkod-1 Anganwadi Center. The petitioner in her application her date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.1970. As per the guidelines issued by the Government, for the proof with regard to date of birth the candidate has to produce the date of birth certificate or SSLC marks card. In this case, the petitioner along with her application she has enclosed transfer certificate as a document to show that her date of birth is 02.09.1989. While examining the application filed by the petitioner, the respondents failed to verify the said transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner. As per the said transfer certificate the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.09.1989. She is within the outer limit of 35 years and she is also widow. Therefore, her case has to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Helper to Basarkod-1 Anganwadi Center. The respondents have failed to consider this document.
7
10. Under these circumstances, the above writ petition is disposed of with the following direction ;-
The respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and also to verify her date of birth. If it is proved that as on the date of filing of application, petitioner was below the age of 35 years, her case has to be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Helper to Basarkod-1 Anganwadi Center.
If the respondents come to the conclusion that the petitioner's case has to be considered to the post of Anganwadi Helper, they have to issue a notice to respondent No.4. After issuing the notice and hearing both the parties, respondents have to take the decision in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn