Karnataka High Court
Mahadevi vs The State Of Karnataka, on 12 April, 2018
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12 t h DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.106467 OF 2016 [S-RES]
BETWEEN
MAHADEVI D/O BASAVARAJ SALADAR,
@ W/O SUBHAS TIGADI, AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCCU: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KALLOLI,
TQ: GOKAK,DIST: BELAGAVI. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K H BAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT &
MEMBER OF ANGANWADI TEACHERS
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE &,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING OFFICER,
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT
2
WP.No.106467/16
DEPARTMENT & MEMBER SECRETARY
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,
GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING OFFICER,
WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT & MEMBER SECRETARY
RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
ARABHAVI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SMT.NINGAVVA
BIRAPPA KURUBANNAVAR,
@ MAHALAXMI CHANNAPPA ARABHAVI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALLOLI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANTHONY R RODRIGUES, AGA FOR R1-R4,
SMT.SHRUTI NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.S.A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R-5.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED:16.07.2016 AT ANNEXURE-F BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this writ petition the petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 16.07.2016 at Annexure- 3 WP.No.106467/16 F, whereby 5 t h respondent has been appointed for the post of the Anganawadi worker/Karyakarte disregarding the claim of the petitioner a widow who has scored higher marks than the appointee.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed Statement of Objections to the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges certain paragraphs of Government Order dated 19.04.2014, in support of his submission that the widowed candidate has a preferential right of appointment as against other candidates. He banks upon paragraph No.4 of the said order which reads as under:
IV) «zs À ª É A iÀ Ä gÀ DAiÉ Ä Ì:-
1) CAUÀ £ À ª Ár PÁAiÀ Ä ðPÀ v É ð / ¸À º ÁAiÀ Ä QAiÀ Ä gÀ ºÀ Ä zÉ Ý UÀ ½ UÉ «zs À ª É A iÀ Ä gÀ Ä Cfð ¸À ° è ¹ zÁUÀ EvÀ g À J¯Áè ¹é à PÀ È vÀ CfðUÀ ¼ À £ À Ä ß ¥À j UÀ t  ¸ À z É £É à gÀ ª ÁV «zs À ª É A iÀ Ä gÀ £ É ß Ã DAiÉ Ä Ì ªÀ i ÁqÀ v À P À Ì zÀ Ä Ý. DzÀ g É 4 WP.No.106467/16 J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. GwÛ Ã tð, ¸À Ü ½ÃAiÀ Ä gÀ Ä ªÀ Ä vÀ Ä Û ªÀ A iÉ Æ Ã«ÄwAiÉ Æ ¼À V gÀ ¨ É Ã PÁVgÀ Ä ªÀ Å zÀ Ä PÀ q ÁØ A iÀ Ä . Cfð ¸À ° è ¹ zÀ £À A vÀ g À «zs À ª É A iÀ i ÁzÀ ° è ¥À j UÀ t  ¸ À Ä ªÀ A w®è .
2) «zs À ª É A iÀ Ä gÀ Ä vÁªÀ Å ¥À æ ¸ À Ä Û v À J°è ªÁ¸À « gÀ Ä ªÀ Å zÁV ªÁ¸À ¸ À Ü ¼À zÀ È rü à PÀ g À t ªÀ £ À Ä ß ¸À ° è ¹ gÀ Ä vÁÛ g É , D ¸À Ü ¼À ª À £ É ß Ã CªÀ g À ªÁ¸À ¸ À Ü ¼À ª É A zÀ Ä ¥À j UÀ t  ¸ À v À P À Ì zÀ Ä Ý.
4. Per contra the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State Mr.Ravi Hosamani takes me through the contents of paragraph No.III of the same Government Order which reads as under:
III) CAUÀ £ À ª Ár ¸À º ÁAiÀ Ä QAiÀ Ä gÀ £ À Ä ß PÁAiÀ Ä ðPÀ v É ð AiÀ Ä gÀ £ ÁßV DAiÉ Ä Ì ªÀ i ÁqÀ Ä ªÀ §UÉ Î
1) CAUÀ £ À ª Ár PÁAiÀ Ä ðPÀ v É ð ºÀ Ä zÉ Ý SÁ°¬ÄgÀ Ä ªÀ / ºÉ Æ ¸À PÉ Ã AzÀ æ ¥Áæ g À A ©ü ¸ À Ä wÛ g À Ä ªÀ UÁæ ª À Ä zÀ ° è ªÁ¹¸À Ä wÛ g À Ä ªÀ ¸À º ÁAiÀ Ä QAiÀ Ä jzÀ Ä Ý, CªÀ g À Ä J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. GwÛ Ã tðgÁVzÀ Ä Ý, PÀ ¤ µÀ × 3 ªÀ µ À ð ¸É à ªÉ ¸À ° è ¹ zÀ Ä Ý, 45 ªÀ µ À ð ªÀ A iÉ Æ Ã«ÄwAiÉ Æ ¼À V zÀ Ä Ý, D CAUÀ £ À ª Ár PÉ Ã AzÀ æ ¢ AzÀ 3 Q.«ÄÃ. ªÁå¦Û A iÉ Æ ¼À U É ªÁ¹¸À Ä wÛ z À Ä Ý, PÁAiÀ Ä ðPÀ v É ð ºÀ Ä zÉ Ý UÉ Cfð ¸À ° è ¹ zÀ ° è D CAUÀ £ À ª Ár PÉ Ã AzÀ æ P É Ì PÁAiÀ Ä ðPÀ v É ð ºÀ Ä zÉ Ý UÉ ¨É à gÉ C¨s À å yðUÀ ½ AzÀ CfðUÀ ¼ À £ À Ä ß DºÁé ¤ ¸À Ä ªÀ 5 WP.No.106467/16 ¥À æ ª É Ä ÃAiÀ Ä «gÀ Ä ªÀ Å ¢®è . ¸À z À j ¸À º ÁAiÀ Ä QAiÀ Ä £É ß Ã PÁAiÀ Ä ðPÀ v É ð ºÀ Ä zÉ Ý UÉ DAiÉ Ä Ì ªÀ i ÁqÀ v À P À Ì zÀ Ä Ý. F §UÉ Î ²±À Ä C©ü ª À È ¢Þ AiÉ Æ Ãd£Á¢ü P ÁjUÀ ¼ À Ä DAiÉ Ä Ì ¸À « ÄwAiÀ Ä Czs À å PÀ ë j UÉ ¥À æ ¸ ÁÛ ª À £ É A iÀ Ä £À Ä ß ¸À ° è ¹ C£À Ä ªÉ Æ ÃzÀ £ É ¥À q É z À Ä DzÉ Ã ±À ºÉ Æ gÀ r ¸À v À P À Ì zÀ Ä Ý.
2) MAzÉ Ã UÁæ ª À Ä zÀ ° è E§â g À Ä J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. ¥Á¸ÁzÀ CºÀ ð ¸À º ÁAiÀ Ä QAiÀ Ä jzÀ Ä Ý, Cfð ¸À ° è ¹ zÀ ° è CªÀ g À ¸É à ªÁ»jvÀ £ À ª À £ À Ä ß ¥À j UÀ t  ¸ À Ä ªÀ Å zÀ Ä .
5. I have heard both the sides and I have perused various paragraphs of the Government Order No. ªÀ Ä ªÀ Ä E 89 L¹r 2014, dated 19.04.2014 which promulgates the guidelines regulating the terms and conditions of appointment to the posts of Anganawadi worker/Karyakarte. Although they do not have force of law still these are the guidelines which have been held out to the public at large and to that extent they regulate the conditions as to the recruitment in question.
6. It is well settled that the violation or breach of these guidelines may give a cause of action as held 6 WP.No.106467/16 by the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Minhas V/s. Indian Statistical Institute and others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 582, Paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the said Judgment read as under:
23........................ T he contentio n of Shri.Garg, howeve r, is that the bye-law having no force o f statute , non- compliance with its requirement canno t in any way affect the appointment of Responde nt No.4 as Director of Respondent No.1.
Shri.Tarkunde , howeve r, co nte nded that assuming that the bye-law is not statutory, e ven so Respondent No .1 was bound to co mply with it. In suppo rt of his contention he strongly re lie d upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airpo rt Autho rity of India. The Court in that case held : (S CC p.503, para 10) It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigo rously he ld to the standards by which it professes its actio ns to be judged and it must scrupulo usly obse rve those standards on pain of invalidatio n o f an act in violatio n of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr.Justice Frankfurte r in Vitarelli v. Seato n where the learned Judge said :
7WP.No.106467/16
An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actio n to be j udge d .... Acco rdingly, if dismissal from e mployment is based on a defined proce dure , even tho ugh generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulo usly observed .... This j udicially evolve d rule of administrative law is now firmly establishe d and, if I may add, rightly so. He that take s the procedural sword shall perish with the swo rd.
The aforesaid principle laid down by Mr Justice Frankfurte r in V itarelli v. Se ato n has been accepte d as applicable in India by this Court in Amarjit Singh A hluwalia v. S tate of Punjab and in subsequent decision given in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi. Mathew, J. quote d the abo ve-refe rre d observation of Mr Justice Frankfurte r with approval.
24. In view of the pro nounce ment of this Court on the po int in must be held to be obligatory on the part o f Respondent No.1 to follow the bye- laws, if the bye- laws have been framed for the conduct of its affairs to avo id arbitrariness. Responde nt No .1 cannot, there fore , escape the liability for not following the proce dure pre scribed by bye-law 2." 8 WP.No.106467/16
7. Apparently, the text of the Government Order is not happily worded. There is no coherence between various paragraphs therein. The standard of language and the level of articulation leave much to be desired. The draftsman appears to be poorly equipped. More is not necessary to specify and less is insufficient to leave it unsaid.
8. It is true that the provisions of the guidelines promulgated by the Government cannot be interpreted as the provisions of a Statute. There is an apparent contradiction as rightly contended by the counsel for the Petitioner, which requires to be resolved by the "Selection and the Appointment Authority" which functions under the said Government Order, after consulting the Secretary of the concerned Department of the Government of Karnataka.
9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner next contends that the impugned order of appointment has 9 WP.No.106467/16 been issued by the Deputy Director, Department of Women and Children Welfare, Belagavi at Annexure-F to the Writ Petition. The said officer is not the Competent Authority for making selection and appointment. The learned State counsel fairly submits that the matter requires reconsideration. However he points out the difficulty that would arise if the impugned appointment is quashed and the post is left vacant.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I making the following:
O R D E R
(i) The impugned Order of appointment at Annexure-F dated 16.07.2016 is hereby quashed;
(ii) The matter is remanded to the Selection Committee for considering afresh the candidature of the Petitioner and 5 t h Respondent for selection and appointment to the post in question after 10 WP.No.106467/16 consulting the Secretary of the 1 s t Respondent Government, in accordance with law.
(iii) The de novo exercise of selection and appointment shall be accomplished within a period of three months from today and that till after the said exercise is accomplished and also subject to its outcome, the 5 t h Respondent shall be continued in service;
(iv) If the de novo exercise of selection and appointment mentioned above is not accordingly accomplished within the time-frame prescribed herein above, the appointment of the 5th Respondent shall stand rescinded on the 1 s t day of the succeeding fourth month.
Sd/-
JUDGE VB