Karnataka High Court
Danamma D/O Veerabhadrayya @ Veerayya ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH
ON THE 12 T H DAY OF MARCH 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K .N . PHA NEENDRA
WRIT PETITION N O.107875/2016 (S -RES)
BETWEEN :
KUMARI : DANAMMA,
D/O VEERABHADRAYYA @ VEERAYYA
HIREMATH, A GE : 26 YEARS ,
OCC: NIL, R/ O SHI NDHI KURUBET,
TQ: GOKAK, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI .
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S .G.KADA DAKATTI, ADVOCA TE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN & CHILD ,
DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUI LDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR V EEDI, BANGALORE- 01,
REPRES ENTED BY ITS SECRETARY .
2. THE CHAIRMAN ANGANAWADI
WORKERS/ASSISTANTS SELECTION COMMITTEE
& THE D EPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVIDISTRICT,
BELAGAVI .
3. THE ASSOCIATE CHAIRMAN ANGANA WADI,
WORKERS/ASSISTANTS SELECTION COMMITTEE
& CHIEF EXECUTIV E OFFI CER,
:2:
ZILLA PANCHAYAT , BELA GAVI,
DISTRICT: BELA GAVI.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN & CHILD ,
DEVELOPMENT AN D MEMBER, ANGA NAWADI,
WORKERS/ASSISTANTS SELECTION COMMITTEE,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELA GAVI.
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
GOKAK TALUK PAN CHAYATH &
MEMBER OF ANGA NAWADI WORKERS ,
/ASSISTANTS SELECTION COMMITTEE,
GOKAK TALUK, DI STRICT : BELAGAV I.
6. THE MEDICAL OF FICER &
MEMBER ANGANA WADI WORKERS ,
/ASSISTANTS SELECTION COMMITTEE,
GOKAK TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI .
7. THE SOCIAL WELF ARE OFFI CER,
& MEMBER ANGAN AWADI WORKERS/
ASSISTANTS SELECTION COMMITTEE,
GOKAK TQ: DISTRICT: BELA GAVI.
8. CHILD D EVELOPMENT PROJ ECT
OFFICER & MEMBER SECRETARY,
ANGANAWADI WORKERS/ASSISTANTS,
SELECTI ON COMMITTEE ARABHAVI ,
GOKAK TQ: DISTRICT: BELA GAVI.
9. BHARATI VASANT BALIKAI,
AGE : 36 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O 820, RAVANA VAR GALLI, SHIND IKURUBET ,
10 T H WARD , TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELA GAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
( BY S R I A . R . R ODR I GU E S , A GA F O R R . N OS .1 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 7 & 8 )
( N OT IC E T O R . N OS . 3 , 5 & 9 : D IS P EN S E D W IT H)
:3:
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UND ER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND TO
QUASH THE S ELECTION MADE BY THE RESPONDENT S
TO THE POST OF ANGANAWADI WORKER TO THE
SHINDIKURBET-465, CENTRE, IN SO FAR AS 9 T H
RESPOND ENT CON CERN, VIDE ANNEXURE-V ISSUED BY
8 T H RES PONDENT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
FURTHER PRAYED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO APPOINT THE
PETITIONER T O THE POST OF ANGANAWADI WORKER
OF SHINDIKURBET ANGANAWADI SEGMENT, OF GOKAK
TALUK BY ALLOW ING THE WRIT PETITION IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEA RING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.1, 2, 4, 6, 7 & 8.
2. Notice to be issued to respondents No.3, 5 and 9 is dispensed with as the petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing itself and no adverse orders are passed against respondents No.3, 5 & 9 :4:
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
4. The petitioner claiming herself to be a physically handicapped lady, having disability of 60% and also obtained 71.16% in the SSLC examination, made an application for appointment of Anganawadi Assistant pertaining to Shindikurbet Village in Gokak Taluk in Belagavi District.
5. Likewife, the 9 t h respondent has also made an application for the said post claiming that she is a widow and aged more than 34 years as on the date of notification i.e., dated 02.05.2015 issued by the Government as per Annexure-A.
6. After contest, it appears the 9th respondent was selected and given that post. The said order being challenged before this court. The records disclose that, the 9 t h respondent's name does not find a place in the provisional list. But in :5: the final list, the 9 t h respondent has been given with the appointment on the ground that she is a widow.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has draw my attention to the notification as per Annexure-A, particularly to Guideline No.13, wherein it says that, if widow and physically handicapped persons have applied for the post of Anganawadi Assistants, they shall be directly appointed.
8. The learned counsel contends further before this court that as per the Guideline No.16 R/w Section 13, if there is any dispute between the widow and physically handicapped persons, according to their qualification, the appointment has to be made.
9. According to the learned counsel for the for the petitioner, the petitioner and as well as the :6: 9th respondent are respectively physically handicapped and a widow, therefore considering the SSLC marks card, the petitioner has been obtained 71.68% much more than the 9th respondent, ought to have been appointed as Anganawadi Assistant, but wrongly appointed the 9 t h respondent on the ground she is a widow, though she has not secured more marks than the petitioner herein.
10. Be that as it may, the Guidelines particularly Guideline No.14 says that, only the persons who are having physical disability less than 60% with a certificate from the competent authority that they are capable of discharging their duties as Anganawadi Workers are only eligible to file application for the said post.
11. The records disclose that the petitioner has submitted the certificate that she is having :7: 60% disability. Under the above said circumstances, when the application itself is not maintainable. Because she has having 60% of disability and therefore her application itself is not maintainable. Though the learned counsel contended that even though she is having 60% disability, she is capable of discharging the duty.
12. But the question arises, the persons though they are capable to discharge their duties, if they are having 60% of disability and above, whether they can file application itself. The Guideline No.14 clarifies the same, therefore, the application itself is not maintainable, if the disability is 60% and above, but it should be below 60%, if the application has to be maintainable. Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reasons in this regard to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents in providing the appointment to the :8: 9 t h respondent, she being the widow and as she has already attained the age of 34 years and she is in the verge of attaining 35 years which is the maximum age limit fixed for the post of Anganawadi Workers. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. However the Government may accommodate the petitioner in any other category or in any other Anganawadi Centers, if possible in accordance with law. With these observations, petition stands dismissed.
SD/ JUDGE E M/ -