Karnataka High Court
Monamma W/O Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 March, 2022
Author: K. Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO.200039/2022 (S-RES)
Between
Smt.Monamma W/o Suresh,
Age : 28 years, OCc: Household,
R/o Kurdi, Tq : Manvi,
Dist : Raichur.
...Appellant
(By Smt.Hema L.K, Advocate)
AND
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Women and Child Development Department,
Vidhan Soudha, Bengaluru.
2. The Deputy Director of Women
and Child Development Department,
Raichur - 584 101.
3. The Child Development and Planning Officer,
Tq : Manvi, Dist : Raichur - 584 101.
2
4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Raichur District, Raichur - 584 101.
5. Smt.Marthamma W/o Ravikumar,
Age : 22 years, Occ: Anganwadi Assistant,
R/o Kurdi, Anganwadi Centre No.9,
Tq: Manvi, Dist : Raichur - 584203.
...Respondents
(Sri Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, GA for R1 to R4;
Sri Huleppa Heroor, Advocate for R5)
This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961 praying to set aside the
impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Single Bench of this Court in W.P.No.202438/2021 and
dismiss the writ petition directing the respondents to
consider the appellant's representation dated 08.07.2021,
13.07.2021 and 23.07.2021 as per Annexures 'P', 'P1' and
'P2' in the interest of justice and equity.
This appeal coming on for Hearing on interlocutory
applications, this day Anant Ramanath Hegde J.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The dispute is between Smt.Monamma and Smt.Marthamma, both of them claim to be eligible to be 3 eligible to be appointed as Anganawadi Worker in Kurdi-1 Village, Anganawadi Center.
2. Smt.Monamma who is assailing the correctness of the order dated 10.02.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.202438/2021, passed in favour of Smt.Marthamma.
3. Smt.Monamma the appellant in this matter is not a party to the writ petition. However, she has filed an application seeking permission to prosecute this appeal on the ground that her right to claim appointment as Anganwadi Worker is affected in terms of the impugned order dated 10.02.2022. Admittedly she was not made a party to the proceedings and she was not heard before passing the impugned order.
4. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge of this court has quashed the notification dated 09.02.2021 issued by the second respondent inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. Appellant 4 Smt.Monamma had applied for the post under the said notification.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
6. We have considered the application filed by the appellant seeking permission to prosecute the appeal. The appellant has made out a ground to prosecute the appeal. She has applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in terms of the notification dated 09.02.2021. Subsequently same was considered and in terms of a decision taken on 02.07.2021, the selection Committee found that the present appellant is eligible. Said Committee also opined that fifth respondent-Smt.Marthamma being in house candidate is eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. Appellant claims that she being the highest marks holder is entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. However, the authority without taking any decision as to who is 5 eligible to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker sought opinion from the higher authorities to know who is eligible for appointment as Anganwadi Worker between appellant and the fifth respondent of this appeal. Now in view of the impugned order, the notification dated 09.02.2021 under which the appellant filed application for appointment of Anganwadi Worker is quashed.
7. It is the contention of the appellant that the impugned order takes away her right to be considered for the post of Anganwadi Worker and she ought to have been heard before passing the impugned order.
8. On the other hand, the learned cousenl counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would urge that no appointment order is passed in favour of the appellant as such she is not having any locus to challenge the impugned order.
9. Perused the records and the impugned order. The learned Single Judge of this court has allowed the writ petition on the premise that the vacancy to appoint 6 Anganwadi Worker has arisen on account of death of Smt.Husainamma who was working as Anganwadi Worker. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the application alleged to have been submitted by the fifth respondent foregoing her claim for promotion is taken under coercion/undue influence. The learned Single Judge has also noticed that in view of the applicable guidelines, the notification could not have been published in 2021 inviting the application for appointment of Anganwadi Worker as in house candidate is available for promotion.
10. However, it is noticed that the decision of the Committee dated 02.07.2021 which records a finding that the present appellant and fifth respondent are eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker is not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the present appellant was a necessary party to the proceeding before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. Hence, the appellant is permitted to prosecute this appeal.
7
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the fifth respondent has given up her right to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker through promotion available to in house candidate. And learned counsel would invite the attention of the court to the letter dated 15.10.2019 alleged to have been submitted by the fifth respondent wherein she has expressed her unwillingness to be promoted as Anganwadi Worker. Based on this it is urged that the authority had no option but to invite application for filling the post of Anganwadi Worker. Thus, it is contended that the notification is published in accordance with law inviting application for Anganwadi Worker and same cannot be questioned.
12. The learned counsel for fifth respondent would submit that under the Government guidelines, if the in house candidate is available for filling the post of Anganwadi Worker, notification inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker cannot be issued. Since, fifth 8 respondent is available as in house candidate the notification inviting application for the post of Anganwadi Worker itself is illegal and would urge that the appellant has no locus standi to make a claim for appointment or to be considered for appointment as an Anganwadi Worker.
13. This court has perused the records. There is no dispute that the notification was published inviting applications for appointment of Anganwadi Workers and the present appellant has filed an application pursuant to the said notification. It is also relevant to note that before publishing the notification inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker, the fifth respondent was asked to furnish documents to consider her eligibility for being promoted as Anganwadi Worker. However, the fifth respondent in terms of application dated 15.10.2019 is said to have expressed her unwillingness. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 by referring to said document would contend that no such unwillingness is expressed by the fifth respondent. This court at this stage is not going to 9 interpret the said document. However, there is no dispute that acting on the said document the concerned authorities have invited the application for the post of Anganwadi Worker. The competent authority pursuant to the notification carried out certain exercise to find out as to who are eligible candidates to be appointed as Anganwadi Workers. It is noticed by the competent authority that the present appellant has secured more marks and she is eligible. At the same time, the fifth respondent of this appeal/writ petitioner is also found to be eligible because she is in house candidate and she has filed an application to consider her candidature as a person entitled to for promotion, though she is said to have expressed unwillingness earlier. However, the selection Committee has not taken any decision to appoint either of the two. On the other hand, has deemed it appropriate to seek opinion of higher officers. Since, the Committee is formed to select the eligible Anganwadi Worker, the decision to select the eligible candidate is to be taken by the said Committee. It cannot seek the opinion of the higher officer in this regard. 10
14. Under the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the writ appeal is to be allowed and the matter is required to be remitted back to the respondent- authority to pass appropriate orders on the claim of the present appellant and fifth respondent who have made a claim for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 village, Taluk Manvi, District Raichur.
15. The writ appeal is allowed in part.
16. The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed in Writ Peittion No.202438/2021 by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this court is hereby set aside.
17. The matter is to be remitted back to the higher authority to take a decision as who is to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 village, Anganwadi Center, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District.
18. The decision in this regard shall be taken by the Committee appointed for the purpose as per the rules 11 and guidelines applicable for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 village.
19. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion as who is eligible for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 Village between the appellant and the fifth respondent.
20. It is also made clear that merely because the appellant's application to prosecute the appeal is allowed the order of this court should not be construed as an order recognizing the right of the appellant to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Kurdi-1 village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur Taluk.
21. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE sn