Karnataka High Court
Neelamma Nagappa Meti Geeta Irappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Secretary on 9 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696
WP No. 102144 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 102144 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
NEELAMMA NAGAPPA METI @ GEETA IRAPPA VANAHALLI,
W/O. IRAPPA, AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: MALLIKARJUN NAGAR, SHIGGAON,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI, PIN: 581205.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN & CHID DEVELOPMENT,
M S BUILDING, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR 2. THE PRESIDENT ANGANAVADI KAREYKARTEYARU /
Location: High Court ASSISTANT SELECTION COMMITTEE AND
of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Dharwad HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN: 581110.
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, HAVERI, PIN: 581110.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI, PIN: 581110.
5. THE PLANNING OFFICER,
THE DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN & CHILD WELFARE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696
WP No. 102144 of 2025
HC-KAR
SHIGGAON, TALUK SHIGGAON,
DIST HAVERI, PIN: 581205.
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHYAT SHIGGAON,
TALUK SHIGGAON, DIST HAVERI, PIN: 581205.
7. THE SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SHIGGAON TALUK, SHIGGAON
DIST: HAVERI, PIN: 581205.
8. THE SECRETARY ANGANAVDI KAREYKARTIYARU/
ASSISTANTS SELECTION COMMITTEE
AND THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
OFFICER, SHIGGAON, TALUK SHIGGAON
DIST: HAVERI, PIN: 581205.
9. DEEPA S.P. W/O VEERABASAYYA PUJAR,
AGE 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIGGAON, TALUK SHIGGAON,
DIST HAVERI, PIN: 581 205.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1, R2, R4, R5, R7 & R8;
SRI.IRANAGOUDA K.KABBUR, ADVOCATE FOR R9,
R3 & R6 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITIION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13-03-2025 SAMKHYA/ SHI/ A. YO.
SHI. AM.AA PATTI/2024-25 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1
TO 8 I.E. VIDE ANNEXURE-H & ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING B-GROUP,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696
WP No. 102144 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer.
"WHEREFOR the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased"
a) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the respondent Nos.1 to 8 vide Annexure-H.
b) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 8 to consider the appointment at Annexure-B and candidature of the petitioner and to appoint her to the post of Anganwadi Helper Anganwadi Kendra, Ward No.4, Ashray Plot, Shiggaon.
c) To grant such other order or relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled to under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
2. Heard Shri G.N. Narasammanavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8;
Shri Iranagouda K.Kabbur, learned counsel appearing for the ninth respondent.
3. The petitioner and the private respondent, participate in a selection process initiated by the respondents for appointment as Anganwadi Helper at Anganwadi Kendra, Ward -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR No.4, Ashray Plot, Shiggaon. The ninth respondent is appointed as Anganwadi Helper in the aforesaid Anganvadi Kendra. The petitioner is before the Court calling the said appointment in question on the score that the petitioner is more meritorious than the appointed candidate.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would project the solitary circumstance of merit as is averred in the petition, as his submission.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner did not upload the domicile certificate and therefore, a less meritorious candidate was chosen in the absence of domicile certificate. The certificates of the appointed candidate were in order. Therefore, the appointment was made in favour of the appointed candidate.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would join the issue in submission that the petitioner while filing the objections had filed the domicile certificate along with the objections.
Therefore, prior to the selection, when it was in place, the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent competent authority ought to have considered the same.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner in the qualifying examination secured 481 marks which amounts to 76.96%. While the selected candidate, the ninth respondent has secured 386 marks which is close to 90 marks less than the marks secured by the petitioner. The only issue is whether merit can be given a go by on the score that the Cyber Center did not upload the document of domicile certificate of the petitioner. The petitioner on looking at the provisional select list files the objections. The objection reads as follows:
"UÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå ²±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ , ªÀÄ»¼Á ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼À C©üªÈÀ ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉ, ²UÁÎAªÀ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR «µÀAiÀÄ:- ²UÁÎAªÀ vÁ®ÆQ£À CAUÀ£ÀªÁr ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄ DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæPÀn¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR:- vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖ ¥ÀvæÀ ¸ÀASÉå:-².CAiÉÆÃ.²/ CA.PÁPÀ/ CA.¸À/ vÁC¥ÀnÖ/ 2024-25 30-01- 2025.
ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ²UÁÎAªÀ ¥ÀÅgÀ¸À¨És ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ªÁqÀð £ÀA-04 D±ÀæAiÀÄ ¥Áèl SÁAiÀÄA gÀºÀªÁ¹AiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ £Á£ÀÄ ²æêÀÄw ¤Ã®ªÀÄä J£ï ªÉÄÃn DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁqÀð £ÀA-04 gÀ D±ÀæAiÀÄ ¥Áèl CAUÀ£ÀªÁr ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ªÁqÀð £ÀA-04 gÀ D±ÀæAiÀÄ ¥Áèl CAUÀ£ÀªÁr ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ ²æêÀÄw ¢Ã¥Á J¸ï ¦ EªÀgÀ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ CAPÀ 386 EzÀÄÝ. £Á£ÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ CAPÀ 481 ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ºÉaÑ£À CAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ßÀ £ÀÆß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ vÀ¥ÁàVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £À£Àß eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DzÁAiÀÄ ¥ÀæªiÀ Át ¥ÀvæÀ ¸ÀASÉå:- RD0039006271415 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ°è ªÁqÀð £ÀA-04 CAvÁ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ F »AzÉ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀĪÀ gÀºÀªÁ¹ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ RD1219006017106 £ÉÃzÀÝ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 31-01-2025 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÄÉ ä ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ vÀAvÁæA±ÀzÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀĪÀÄÄzÀætªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ CzÀgÀ°è ¸ÀºÀ ªÁqÀð £ÀA-04 JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DAiÉÄÌAiÀÄ ¥ÀnÖUÉ £À£Àß vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÇgÀPÀªÁzÀ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀvÀÛ Ej¹ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É PÁgÀt £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ Cfð, UËgÀªÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹PÀgÀÄ.
(²æêÀÄw ¤Ã®ªÀÄä J£ï ªÉÄÃnÖ) ªÁqÀð £ÀA-04 D±ÀæAiÀÄ ¥Áèl, vÁ ²UÁÎAªÀ f|| ²UÁÎAªÀ.
¸ÀܼÀ:- ²UÁÎAªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 31-01-2025"-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. To the objections, the document i.e. the domicile certificate is appended. This is an admitted fact. If the domicile certificate was available and not uploaded at the outset, it was brought to the notice of the authority before the final list could be out. The issue whether non-filing of the domicile certificate would take away the merit of a candidate is no longer res integra. Non-uploading of the documents of a meritorious candidate is undoubtedly a curable defect as is held by the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Bijoria v. Delhi subordinate Services Selection Board and Another1, which is followed by this Court in Writ Petition No.102135/2023 disposed on 30.08.2023 concerning these very appointments, i.e. the posts of Anganwadi helper/worker, which reads as follows:
12. The reference made by the counsel for the 5th respondent to the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench is distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the case at hand without much ado, as the coordinate bench does not consider the judgments rendered on the point by the Apex Court. The Apex Court, in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 has considered this aspect of curable defects being projected as reasons for denial for appointment of candidates. The Apex Court has held as follows:
"14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa [Pushpa 1 (2016) 4 SCC 754 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] . In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [Indra Sawhney v.
Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University [Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] . The learned Single Judge in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] also considered another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh [Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000) 1 Del 298] , wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the SC and ST categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate.
15. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 :
(1992) 22 ATC 385] has been extracted in Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] along with the speech delivered by Dr Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and reads thus: (Pushpa case [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , SCC OnLine Del para 9) "9. ... '251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the Draft Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for representation in public administration, Dr Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to "a minority of seats", lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great importance, the full text of his speech -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated:
"... firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly, that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a 'proper look-in' so to say into the administration. ... Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity. ... Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in Indra Sawhney case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.] must be confined to a minority of seats [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in Indra Sawhney case, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.] . It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation. ... we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State...." [Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp. 701-02 (1948-1949).] These words embody the raison d'être of reservation and its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of people which have resulted in their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, insofar as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal.' (Indra Sawhney case [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , SCC pp. 433-34, para 251)"
16. In Pushpa [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , relevant paragraphs from Tej Pal Singh [Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000) 1 Del 298] have also been extracted, which read thus: (Pushpa case [Pushpa v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , SCC OnLine Del para 11) "11. ... '15. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11-6- 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including SC category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for SC category, the requirement is that a person should belong to SC category. If a person is SC he is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to SC category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to SC category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to SC category prior to 30-6-1998 or that acquired the status of being SC only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30-6-1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.
16. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the fundamental rights and directive principles of the Constitution, in particular Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful.' (Tej Pal Singh case [Tej Pal Singh v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1092 : ILR (2000) 1 Del 298] , SCC OnLine Del paras 15-16)"
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In the light of the petitioner being more meritorious higher by 90 marks than that of the selected candidate, the ninth respondent, the non-Selection of the petitioner on the sole score that the domicile certificate was not uploaded notwithstanding the fact that, it was appended to the objections is erroneous and contrary to law. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition stands allowed;
(ii) The appointment of the ninth respondent stands quashed.
(iii) The petitioner shall be offered appointment as Anganwadi Helper at Anganwadi Kendra, Ward No.4, Ashray Plot, Shiggaon if the petitioner qualifies on all other counts.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17696 WP No. 102144 of 2025 HC-KAR Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35