Karnataka High Court
Smt. Vijaya D/O. Shankar Kale vs The Director on 13 June, 2014
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.103840/2014 (S-RES)
BETWEEN
SMT.VIJAYA D/O.SHANKAR KALE
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. AIGALI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELGAUM ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DIRECTOR
WOMEN & CHILD WELFARE
DEVELOPEMNT DEPT.
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM
3. MEMBER SECRETARY & PROJECT OFFICER
CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ICDS
DEPT. OF WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT
ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.VIDYAVATHI, AGA)
:2:
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD. NIL ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEX-C IN
SO FAR AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE CANCELLATION OF
PROVISIONAL SELECTION LIST TO THE POST OF ASST.
ANGANWADI WORKER AT PHADATARWADI ANGANWADI
CENTRE, AIGALI GRAM PANCHAYAT, ATHANI, AS THE SAME
BEING TATALLY ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NOT
SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The learned AGA is directed to take notice for the respondents 1 to 3.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order dated nil canceling the provisional selection list to the post of Anganwadi Assistant at Phadatarwadi-3 Anganwadi Center.
3. The third respondent invited the applications for the post of Anganwadi Assistants in various :3: Anganwadi Centers of Athani Taluk. The petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Assistant at Phadatarwadi-3 Anganwadi Center. The third respondent published the provisional selection list of the candidates on 24.07.2013 as per Annexure-A. The name of the petitioner is at Sl.No.31. Some third party filed objections stating that the notification dated 15.03.2013 has not been widely circulated. Considering the said objection, the third respondent-selection committee has cancelled the provisional selection list. Thereafter, fresh notification dated 13.12.2013 has been issued as per Annexure-D. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order canceling the provisional selection list cannot be sustained in law. She also submitted that based on the objections of some :4: third party, the provisional selection list has been cancelled which is not correct. The petitioner was not given any opportunity before canceling the provisional selection list. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
5. As against this, the learned AGA submitted that as wide publication was not given and objections were received the selection committee has cancelled the provisional selection list. The petitioner was not finally selected or appointed as Anganwadi Assistant. As there was no proper publication, the selection committee has cancelled the provisional selection list. Thereafter, fresh notification has been issued. Therefore, the impugned order canceling the provisional selection list does not call for interference.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. :5:
7. The point that arise for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned order at Annexure-C calls for interference?
8. It is relevant to note, in response to the notification dated 15.03.2013 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Assistant the petitioner has applied. Thereafter, provisional selection list has been published as per Annexure-A. The name of the petitioner is at Sl.No.31. However, as objections were received stating that there was no proper publication, the selection committee has canceled the provisional selection list thinking that it is not proper to finalise the list. Thereafter, fresh notification dated 13.12.2013 has been issued as per Annexure-D. The petitioner cannot have any grievance as she was not finally selected or appointed. It was only a provisional selection list. The selection Committee thinking that wide publication was not given has cancelled the provisional selection list. :6: In fact fresh notification has been issued. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The learned AGA is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*