Karnataka High Court
Smt. Gayatri vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 October, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917
WP No. 200522 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 200522 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GAYATRI
D/O RAJBRAHMACHARI, (W/O LATE B. HARI),
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: ANGANAWADI
WORKER, OF KHOBHAGALLI ANGANAWADI CENTER,
AURAD B, R/O. C/O. RAJBRAHMACHARI 5/38,
PATAGI GALLI AURAD B, TQ.AURAD (B),
DIST. BIDAR-585 326.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN
MALAGHAN AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S UNDER SECRETARY,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALURU-01.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
AND PRESIDENT ANGANWADI WORKERS/HELPERS
SELECTION COMMITTEE, BIDAR,
DIST. BIDAR- 585 401.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917
WP No. 200522 of 2025
HC-KAR
DEVELOPMENT, TQ. AND DIST.BIDAR- 585 401.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR SUB-DIVISION, BIDAR,
TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR- 585 401.
5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,
DEPT. OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE
DEVELOPMENT, SANTAPUR, TQ. AURAD (B),
DIST. BIDAR- 585 326.
6. THE TAHASHILDAR
OFFICE OF TAHASHILDAR, AURAD (B),
TQ. AURAD (B), DIST. BIDAR- 585 326.
7. SMT. RENUKA W/O VIDYASAGAR MALLE,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BUTTEGALLI, AURAD (B), TQ. AURAD (B),
DIST. BIDAR- 585 326.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI DR. A.A. GUNNAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.PÀA/¸ÀAQÃtð/
¹Dgï-41/2024-25 DATED 22.01.2025, ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-J, IN
CANCELLING/RECALLING THE RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-C1,
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 6 TO
RESTORE RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917
WP No. 200522 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by respondent No.4 - Assistant Commissioner canceling the residential certificate produced at Annexure-C1.
2. Case of the petitioner is that she was born on 11.07.1991 at Pattigi Galli, Aurad-B. She was married to one B. Hari on 20.06.2014. After the marriage, she started residing with her husband at Subhashnagar, Sadashivpet, Sangareddy District, Telangana State. She has got two daughters. That her husband B. Hari passed away on 24.05.2021. Ever since then, she has returned to her parental house at Pattigi Galli and has been residing with her small children. Respondent No.3 had issued notification inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill posts of Anganwadi Workers and Helper in Bidar District. Petitioner had applied to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Khobhagalli Anganwadi Centre, Aurad-B which -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917 WP No. 200522 of 2025 HC-KAR was reserved under widow quota. Petitioner had also obtained a residential certificate in terms of Annexure-C1 issued by the Deputy Tahasildar, Aurad-B Hobli, Aurad Taluk, Bidar District, certifying the petitioner herein to be the resident of Pattigi Galli, Aurad-B Hobli, Aurad Taluk and Bidar District. That her application was accepted by the respondent - authorities. A provisional list in this regard was issued as per Annexure-D in which, the name of the petitioner was reflected at Sl.No.1.
3. Things stood thus, private respondent No.7 had filed objections alleging that the petitioner herein had suppressed the facts and obtained a residential certificate based on the false documents. That she is the permanent resident of Telangana state, as such, she was not entitled for the residential certificate certifying her to be the resident of Pattigi Galli. Pursuant to which, a report was called for from the office of the Tahasildar, who by his communication dated 14.06.2023 produced at Annexure- E, submitted his report opining that the petitioner is -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917 WP No. 200522 of 2025 HC-KAR indeed the resident of Pattigi Galli, Aurad-B residing there subsequent to demise of her husband. It is only thereafter an appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner appointing her as the Anganwadi worker of Khobhagalli Anganwadi Centre effective from 15.01.2025.
4. Being aggrieved, the private respondent No.7 preferred an appeal before respondent No.4 - Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.4 - Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 22.01.2025, impugned in this writ petition, produced at Annexure-J, allowed the said appeal canceling the residential certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. Consequent thereupon, respondent No.5 issued show-cause notice dated 19.02.2025 as per Annexure-K. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the records, submits that the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order which runs -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917 WP No. 200522 of 2025 HC-KAR contrary to the very Government Order dated 23.09.2017 providing manner, method and mechanism for appointing the Anganwadi workers. He submits that admittedly the petitioner being a widow is entitled to be given preference over other candidates. Secondly, he submits that the Assistant Commissioner could not have cancelled the residential certificate based on the allegation of she having been married to one B. Hari of Sadashivpet, Sangareddy district, Telangana, without taking into consideration that said B. Hari has passed away on 24.05.2021 and ever since then the petitioner has been residing at Pattigi Galli with her children in her parental house. He submits that the petitioner having been born at Pattigi Galli and now residing as a widow, satisfies all the requirements of the Government Order providing for an appointment of Anganwadi worker. This factual and legal aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Assistant Commissioner warranting interference at the hands of this Court.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917 WP No. 200522 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.7, at the outset, submits that the petitioner who claims to be the resident of Pattigi Galli, has sought appointment in respect of Anganwadi Centre which is situated at Khobhagalli. He submits that private respondent No.7 is the resident of Khobhagalli, as such, petitioner even if held to be the resident of Pattigi Galli, is not entitled to be appointed as Anganwadi worker of Anganwadi Centre at Khobhagalli. However, to a query by this Court as to whether the Khobhagalli Anganwadi Centre includes Pattigi Galli area, learned counsel for respondent No.7 pleads ignorance to the same.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 submits that he would seek instructions in this matter.
8. Be that as it is, having heard learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is : -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917 WP No. 200522 of 2025 HC-KAR "Whether respondent No.4 - Assistant Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned order without reference to the Government Order dated 23.09.2017 particularly with regard to preference to be given to the candidature under quota for widow ?"
9. The Government Order dated 23.09.2017 provides guiltiness for appointment of Anganwadi Worker/helper. Clause (2) of the said order requires production of domicile/residential certificate, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"2) ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄvÉ:
CAUÀ£ª À Ár PÁAiÀÄðPÀvð É / ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄgÀ DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄgÁVgÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ. C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¸® À Ä ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ MAzÀÄ (1) ªÀµð À zÉƼÀUÉ ¸ÀA§Azs¥ À ÀlÖ vÀº² À ïÁÝgj À AzÀ / G¥À vÀº² À ïÁÝgj À AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ªÁ¸À¸ÀܼÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ¥Àvª Àæ £ À ÀÄß PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁV CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¸v À PÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ."
10. Perusal of the entire Government Order dated 23.09.2017 do not indicate the minimum years of residence required for issuance of domicile certificate. Nonetheless, there is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner is born and brought up at Pattigi Galli. She was -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917 WP No. 200522 of 2025 HC-KAR married in the year 2014 and resided with her husband at Telangana up to 2021 and after demise of her husband she started residing back at Pattigi Galli with her parents. This fact is not been disputed. Further, sub-para (3) of Para(II) the Government Order dated 23.09.2017 provides as under:
"[II] DAiÉÄÌ DzÀåvÉ:
1) ......
2) ......
3) «zsª À A É iÀÄgÀ DAiÉÄÌ:- C) ......
D) ......
E) «zsª À ÉAiÀÄgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄv Û À J°è ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀÅzÁV, ªÁ¸À¸ÀܼÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀgt À ªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛg,É D ¸Àܼª À £ À Éßà CªÀgÀ ªÁ¸À¸Àܼª À A É zÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸  v À PÀ ÀÌzÀÄÝ. F) ......"
11. Thus, perusal of the Government Order, more particularly, the relevant portion extracted hereinabove, indicates that the petitioner, apart from being the resident of Pattigi Galli, also satisfies the requirement for consideration of her case under quota for widow. These
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917 WP No. 200522 of 2025 HC-KAR two aspects of the matter have not been taken note of by the Assistant Commissioner in the impugned order. The Assistant Commissioner in the impugned has opined that applicant seeking domicile/residential certificate shall either the permanent resident or must have been residing for a minimum period of six years. Since the husband of petitioner had passed away in the 2021 and she has been residing at the address given in the application thereafter, she had not completed the said minimum period of six years. Nothing is referred to in the impugned order prescribed minimum requirement of six years. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 22.01.2025 at Annexure-J is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration taking into consideration the aforesaid Government Order dated
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5917 WP No. 200522 of 2025 HC-KAR 23.09.2017 in its entirety, more particularly, the portions which are extracted hereinabove.
(c) The Assistant Commissioner shall pass appropriate order after affording sufficient opportunity, within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(d) Since respondent No.7 has raised an issue of Anganwadi Centre of Khobhagalli not including Pattigi Galli area, respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner shall look into whether Pattigi Galli area falls within Khobhagalli Anganwadi Centre and pass appropriate order in this regard.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT:PK