Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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:

" 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.

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 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 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.