Karnataka High Court
Smt.Shobha R vs The Secretary on 9 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:15367
WP No. 6065 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 6065 OF 2022 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHOBHA R.,
W/O DINESHKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ANGANAWADI WORKER
KALLAMBI, SORABA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577429
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
MULTISTOREYED BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Digitally BANGALORE-560001.
signed by
SUMA 2. THE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD
Location: WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
HIGH MULTISTOREYED BUILDING,
COURT OF DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LKOLA, SHIMOGA
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577204.
4. THE CHILD PROJECT OFFICER
SORABA,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577429
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:15367
WP No. 6065 of 2022
5. SMT. YESHODA O.,
W/O SRI. VEERESH K.K.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT
B-INDUVALLI,
R/O B-INDUVALLI,
SORABA TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA -577429
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAYALINGAYYA MUDENOORMATH, ADDITIONAL
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;
SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
DATED 25.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN
NO.SHI.AAYO.SO/HIMBARAHA/2021-22/148 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-
K AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.²CAiÉÆøÉÆ/»A§gÀºÀ/2021-22/148 dated 25.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 by which, her request for transfer as Anganwadi worker from Anganwadi Centre at Kallambi to Anganwadi Centre Induvalli-1 was rejected.
2. The petitioner has also challenged an order bearing No.²CAiÉÆøÉÆ/¸À.ªÀÄÄ./2021-22 dated 23.08.2021 passed by the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022 respondent No.4 promoting the respondent No.5 as Anganwadi worker at Induvalli-1 Anganwadi Centre.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi worker at Kallambi on 27.09.2012. The Director of Department of Women and Child Welfare had issued guidelines dated 24.05.2016 permitting shifting an Anganwadi worker to a nearby Anganwadi Centre where there is a clear vacancy. The petitioner contends that there was a vacancy at Induvalli Anganwadi Centre which was adjacent to Anganwadi Centre at Kallambi. The petitioner claimed that since she was eligible and experienced, she submitted a representation on 03.01.2020 requesting the respondent No.4 to transfer her to Anganwadi Centre at Induvalli. In the meanwhile, respondent No.5, who was an Anganwadi Helper at Induvalli had made a request on 07.12.2019 for promotion to the post of Anganwadi worker as the incumbent was to retire on 31.03.2020. Since the request of both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 were not considered, they filed W.P. No.12951/2020 and W.P. No.3161/2021 respectively. This Court disposed of the said petitions by order/s dated 05.01.2021 and 17.02.2021 respectively and directed the concerned respondents therein to -4- NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022 consider the representation/s of the respective petitioner in accordance with law. The respondent - authorities did not consider the representation of the petitioner herein which compelled her to file CCC No.524/2021 (Civil).
4. The Division Bench of this Court in term of the order dated 25.11.2021, dropped the contempt proceedings subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-, in view of an endorsement dated 25.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 herein rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein for transfer from Anganwadi Centre at Kallambi to Anganwadi Centre at Induvalli-1 on the ground that the respondent No.5 was already promoted to the post of Anganwadi worker at Induvalli-1 Anganwadi Centre.
5. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement and the consequent promotion of the respondent No.5, this petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the guidelines prescribed by the respondent No.2 dated 24.05.2016, if an Anganwadi worker who has SSLC qualification and has three years experience and is less than 45 years of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022 age, and is residing within 3 Kms, radius, she is entitled to seek transfer to nearest Anganwadi Centre where there is a clear vacancy. He contends that the petitioner was appointed on 27.09.2012 as an Anganwadi worker and she had passed the SSLC examination. He contends that the post of Anganwadi worker at the Anganwadi Centre, Induvalli-1 fell vacant after the incumbent retired on 31.03.2020. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner was entitled to be transferred to the Anganwadi Centre at Induvalli-1. However, the respondent No.4 without considering the case of the petitioner, had rejected her representation on the ground that the respondent No.5, who was employed as Anganwadi Helper at the Anganwadi Centre, Induvalli was promoted to the post of Anganwadi worker. He contends that the petitioner had made a first claim for transfer and hence, the petitioner was entitled to transfer as sought for.
7. Per contra, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed objections inter alia contending that as per the Circulars and guidelines of the Government dated 27.09.2017, 12.09.2018, 19.01.2019, 15.06.2020 and 26.02.2021, the applications of the petitioner and respondent No.5 and Smt. Guthyamma S., a -6- NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022 Helper in Hesari Anganwadi Centre were considered. The SSLC marks card submitted by Smt.Guthyamma S. was found to be fake and therefore, her application was rejected. The SSLC marks card of respondent No.5 was found to be genuine and hence, she was promoted to the post of Anganwadi worker at Induvalli-1 Anganwadi Centre.
8. It is contended that as per the Government Circular and the directions issued by this Court, Mini Anganwadi workers residing within 3 Kms. of an Anganwadi and having experience of minimum three years and are below the prescribed age of 45 years are eligible to be promoted to the post of Anganwadi worker. If Mini Anganwadi workers are not available, preference must be given for promotion of an Anganwadi Helper in that Anganwadi Centre for appointment in a vacant post of worker and if the applications are not received from Anganwadi Helper, third preference should be given for the transfer / shift of an Anganwadi worker from a nearby Anganwadi Centre. It is contended that no Mini Anganwadi worker / Mini Anganwadi helper residing within 3 Kms. of Induvalli-I Anganwadi Centre was available. As per the Government Circular, second preference was given for promotion of Anganwadi Helpers of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022 Induvalli-1 Anganwadi centre. Respondent No.5 was the Anganwadi Helper at Induvalli-1 Anganwadi Centre, who had submitted an application for promotion to the post of Anganwadi worker. It is claimed that the petitioner who was working as an Anganwadi worker had requested for transfer / shift to Induvalli-1 Anganwadi Centre though she was not eligible for the post of Anganwadi worker as her preferential right had not arisen. It is, therefore, contended that the respondent No.5, who was eligible to be promoted was first considered and the case of the petitioner was not considered. It is also contended that the respondent No.5 was qualified in all respects to be promoted to the post of Anganwadi worker and was accordingly promoted. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for a transfer to Anganwadi Centre, Induvalli-1.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the above and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the petition.
10. The respondent No.5 has also filed a statement of objections contending that she is a widow and was appointed -8- NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022 by the respondent No.3 as an Anganwadi Assistant at Induvalli- B Anganwadi Centre on 22.05.2017. She contends that a person named Smt.Shanthamma who was working as Anganwadi worker at the said Centre retired from service on 31.03.2020 and therefore, she was eligible for promotion to the said post. She contends that the respondent No.4 had promoted her as an Anganwadi worker after following the due process of law on 23.08.2021. It is contended that a person named Smt.Mamathashree is appointed as an Anganwadi Assistant in the place of the respondent No.5 by the respondent No.3 on 29.04.2022. Thus, it is contended that the respondent No.5 cannot now be reverted back to the post of Anganwadi Assistant, which is already filled up. Further, it is contended that the Anganwadi Centre where the petitioner is working is a General Anganwadi Centre and not a Mini Anganwadi Centre and is about 35 to 40 Kilometers away from Induvalli Anganwadi Centre and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for transfer from General Anganwadi Centre at Kallambi to Mini Anganwadi Centre at Induvalli-1.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 reiterated the above and contended that the petitioner is not entitled to transfer as sought for.
12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5.
13. The petitioner has highly relied upon a letter dated 24.05.2016 addressed by the respondent No.2 to all the Deputy Directors of the Women and Child Welfare Department in the State, wherein it is stated as follows:
"G¯ÉèÃRzÀ(1)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝ SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ/ºÉƸÀPÉÃAzÀæ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄjzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. GwÛÃtðgÁVzÀÄÝ, PÀ¤µÀ× 3 ªÀµÀð ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, 45 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÉÆëÄwAiÉƼÀVzÀÄÝ, D CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÉÃAzÀæ¢AzÀ 3 Q.«ÄÃ. ªÁå¦ÛAiÉƼÀUÉ ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è D CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÉÃAzÀæPÉÌ PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½AzÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DºÁ餸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÉÄÃAiÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄ£Éßà PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. F §UÉÎ ²±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ DAiÉÄÌ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022 CzsÀåPÀëjUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. CAvÀºÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁV®è¢zÀÝ°è, ¸ÁÜ£À¥À®èl PÉÆÃj §A¢gÀĪÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ. ¸ÁÜ£À¥À®èl PÉÆÃj AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁV®è¢zÀÝ°É ºÉƸÀzÁV DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ UÀjµÀ× 2 wAUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÉ ªÀÄÄV¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ."
14. A perusal of the above shows that if there are any vacant posts of Anganwadi workers and if Anganwadi Assistants are residing in the same village and who possess SSLC and who have put in three years of service and who are 45 years of age, they should be considered for promotion to the post of Anganwadi worker. It is not known as to how the petitioner can draw benefit from this communication to contend that she was entitled for transfer as Anganwadi worker from the Anganwadi Centre at Kallambi to Anganwadi Centre at Induvalli-1. Even otherwise, the post of Anganwadi worker at Induvalli-1 is now occupied by the respondent No.5 by way of promotion and the post of Anganwadi Assistant which the respondent No.5 was earlier holding is filled up by another person, which is not in dispute. If that be so, the petitioner cannot compel the official respondents that she should be
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:15367 WP No. 6065 of 2022 transferred to the post of Anganwadi worker at Anganwadi Centre at Induvalli-1. The impugned order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.4 promoting the respondent No.5 as Anganwadi worker at Induvalli-1 Anganwadi Centre is just and proper and also meets the interest of the respondent No.5, who was working as an Anganwadi Assistant in the said Centre from the year 2017. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Similarly, the impugned endorsement dated 25.08.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 is justified and does not warrant interference.
Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56