Karnataka High Court
Smt.Parvati W/O Mahesh Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 25 September, 2020
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
Bench: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
WRIT PETITION No.205980/2014 (S-RES)
Between:
Smt. Parvati
W/o Mahesh Rathod
Aged about 27 years
R/at bommanala Thanda
Post Khairwadagi
Tq. Lingasugur
Dist. Raichur-584 125
... Petitioner
(By Sri J.Augustin, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary to the Women &
Child Welfare Department
M.S.Building
Bangalore-560 001
2. The Child Development
Project Officer (CDPO)
And Member Secretary
Anganwadi Workers
Selection Committee
2
Lingasugur
Dist. Raichur-584 125
3. The Tahsildar
Lingasugur
Dist. Raichur-584 125
4. The Revenue Inspector
Mudgal, Taluk Lingasugur
Dist. Raichur-584 125
5. Smt. Lalitha
W/o Chandappa Chawan
Aged about 27 years
R/at Bommanala Thanda
Post Khairwadagi
Taluk Lingasugur
Dist.Raichur-584 125
... Respondents
(By Smt.Anuradha M.Desai, GA for R1 to R4;
Sri Ajaykumar A.K., Advocate for R5)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
Annexure-K selection of the respondent No.5 to the post of
Anganwadi worker to Anganwadi centre of Bommanahal
Tanda, Tq.Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur; to direct the
respondent No.2 to issue appointment order to the
petitioner herein as per the provisional list vide Annexure-
C; to quash the impugned Annexure-D order dated
09.09.2014 Sam.Kam.Sankirna-02:171:2014-15 the
3
communication issued by the Tahsildar Lingasugur
regarding the residence of the petitioner.
This petition having been heard, reserved for orders
on 17.08.2020 and coming on for pronouncement of order
this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
The respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 26.06.2014 inviting applications from suitable and eligible candidates for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarthe of Bommanaala Tanda, Taluka Lingasugur. One of the conditions prescribed and which is relevant for the purpose of this case is that an applicant seeking appointment was required to furnish a residential certificate obtained from the office of Tahsildar stating that the applicant was a resident of the village for a period of six months prior to the last date of filing the application.
2. The petitioner and the respondent No.5, belonging to the reserved category, applied against the said notification. The petitioner had secured 58.40% marks in the SSLC examination while the respondent No.5 had 4 secured 48.80% in the SSLC examination. Since the petitioner had secured more marks than the respondent No.5 and having regard to the fact that the petitioner had furnished the residential certificate, the respondent No.2 published a select list provisionally appointing the petitioner to the post in terms of the resolution dated 24.07.2014 and granted time to verify the authenticity of the residential certificate and to submit objections against the provisional selection by 08.08.2014.
3. It is stated that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the respondent No.5 raised an objection that the residential certificate issued in respect of the petitioner was fake as she was not a resident of the village. She also alleged that though the Tahsildar had refused to issue the residential certificate, yet the petitioner had tampered it to seem as though the certificate was issued. The respondent No.2 therefore held a meeting on 13.08.2014 whereat, the respondent No.2 found that the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar refusing to grant the residential 5 certificate dated 21.07.2014 and the residential certificate furnished by the petitioner bore the same number namely RD0038763048674. Thus, the respondent No.2 resolved to write to the Tahsildar to conduct a thorough enquiry and submit a report.
4. The Tahsildar in terms of his letter dated 09.09.2014 and another letter bearing No.Msc- 2:171:2014-15 submitted a report stating that the petitioner had married Mahesh of Bommanaala Tanda on 05.07.2014 and that therefore the Revenue Inspector had refused to grant the residential certificate and had rejected the same by an endorsement and that the Tahsildar had not issued the residential certificate. Thus, the respondent No.2 at its meeting cancelled the provisional appointment of the petitioner and provisionally selected the respondent No.5, subject to objections that may be received within one week. The petitioner thereafter submitted objection on 27.09.2014 and another representation dated 29.09.2014 6 requesting the respondent No.2 to put on hold the appointment of the respondent No.5.
5. The petitioner has thus challenged the appointment of the respondent No.5 in this writ petition on the ground that she must have been heard before cancellation of her provisional selection and also that the Tahsildar had failed to grant an opportunity to her before reporting that he had not granted the residential certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the invitation to her marriage with Mahesh of Bommanaala Tanda on 02.05.2014 and also the marriage certificate registered before the Marriage Officer, Lingsugur which indicates that the petitioner was married to Mahesh of Bommanaala Tanda on 02.05.2014 which was registered on 05.07.2014. The petitioner contends that she had secured more marks than the respondent No.5 and that therefore she must have been appointed.
6. The learned Government Advocate filed the statement of objections and placed on record an 7 application dated 14.07.2014 filed by the petitioner with the Tahsildar for a residential certificate which was assigned file no "RD0038763048674". It is claimed in this application that the petitioner was a permanent resident of Bommanaala Tanda. However, the Revenue Inspector after securing information rejected the request of the petitioner for residential certificate in file no RD0038763048674. Following this, the Tahsildar had issued an endorsement dated 21.07.2014 in File No. RD0038763048674 rejecting the request of the petitioner for a residential certificate. However, the petitioner managed to obtain a residential certificate in the same file number RD0038763048674 dated 21.07.2014 stating that she was residing at Bommanaala Tanda for nearly 2 years. The learned Government Advocate submits that the residence within the Bommanaala Tanda is only to ensure that the selected candidate has personal knowledge of the children, its parents and also that it would facilitate the selected candidate to serve better. He submitted that the petitioner 8 having submitted a false certificate is not entitled to be considered for the post.
7. This Court in terms of the Order dated 18.06.2018 ordered that the appointment of the respondent No.5 shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the prescription of residence as a threshold criteria may violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and could at the most be prescribed as a preference when two candidates have the same merit. He contended that as the petitioner had a better merit, she must have been selected over the respondent No.5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to justify whether the post of an Anganwadi worker was a civil post under the State or whether there were any statutory rules of recruitment or whether the appointment was made under any executive 9 instructions of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The learned Government Advocate was quick to add that the post carried a honorarium of Rs.3000/- from the Central Government and a sum of Rs.2500/- from the State Government as stipulated under Annexure-A.
10. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner must have been heard before her provisional selection was overturned. He further stated that the Tahsildar must have provided an opportunity of being heard before claiming that the petitioner had fabricated a fake residential certificate.
11. The importance of a candidate seeking appointment to the post of an anganwadi worker to be from the local village was emphasized by the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs Punra Devi reported in 2015 (11)SCC 788, in the following words:
"The Anganwadi workers and helpers are community based frontline workers under 10 ICDS, and are central figure in helping the community as to the needs of their children by delivery of services under the Scheme. They are required to be appointed from the local community who come forward to render their services, on a part-time basis in the area of child care and development. As per the guidelines, selections of AWWs and AWHs require that the women appointed for such services should be from local village and acceptable to the local community."
12. The Apex Court in State of Karnataka and others vs. Ameerbi and others reported in 2007 (11)SCC 681 elaborately dealt with the Scheme known as Integrated Child Development Scheme formulated by the Central Government and noticed that anganwadi workers and helpers were not to be appointed on a pay scale but were to be paid honorarium. After considering the various measures evolved by the States and the Central government for ameliorating the status of these anganwadi workers by granting additional honorarium, creating a welfare fund etc, the Court held as follows: 11
" 13. The posts of anganwadi workers are not statutory posts. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say that there exists a relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and anganwadi workers but it is another thing to say that they are holders of a civil post.
14. We are not oblivious to the fact that their presence in their respective villages is extremely important. They are supposed to make significant contribution to the society. They, we understand, are required to carry out a large number of activities, primary amongst them being the welfare of the children.
20. Anganwadi workers, however, do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under a statute. Their posts are not created. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their 12 appointment within the constitutional scheme exists."
13. Thus, the question of testing the constitutional validity of prescribing the residence as the eligibility criteria in view of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India would not arise in the case of the petitioner as the post to which such criteria was prescribed was not a civil post under the State. However, validity of prescribing the residence as the eligibility criteria could be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which has been answered vividly in the affirmative by the Apex Court in the case of Ameerbi and Punra Devi referred above.
14. Coming to the next question urged by the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner herself has placed on record her marriage invitation card which discloses that the petitioner was a resident of Ashihal Tanda and that she was given in marriage to Mahesh of Bommanaala Tanda on 02.05.2014. The marriage certificate of the 13 petitioner bears testimony to the above fact. If that be so, she could not be said to be residing at Bommanaala Tanda six months prior to 23.07.2014, being the last date prescribed for filing the application for the post of Anganwadi worker at Bommanaal tanda. The petitioner has not placed any other material on record to indicate that she was residing in Bommanaal tanda even before her marriage on 02.05.2014. Thus, the respondent No.2 finding force in the objection raised by the respondent No.5 sought for a report from the Tahsildar. The learned Government Advocate has placed on record Annexure-R1 which is the record of the proceedings held to process the request of the petitioner for a residential certificate. This indicates that the Tahsildar had rejected the certificate as the petitioner was not residing in Bommanaala village for 6 months and had directed that an endorsement be issued to that effect to the petitioner. Consequent thereto, an endorsement dated 21.07.2014 was issued rejecting the request of the petitioner. The petitioner has not explained the circumstances under which she obtained a residential 14 certificate stating that she was residing at Bommanaala for nearly two years, that too based on the very same application processed as file No.RD0038763048674. It therefore has to be held that the residential certificate placed before the respondent No.2 seeking appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker was not genuine.
15. In Manoj Kumar vs Government of NCT of Delhi and others reported in 2010 (11) SCC 702, the Apex Court held that a candidate furnishing false or incomplete information or withholding or concealing any material information in his application can be debarred from securing employment. Even if such a candidate is appointed, his service will be liable to be terminated for furnishing false information.
In view of the above, this writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR