IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.Pandit, J.
Kavitha L.C. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 15652 of 2022 (S-RES)
Decided On : 17-10-2022
Anganwadi Worker - Appointment Dispute - Annexure-C, Annexure-T - The court discussed the appointment dispute of the Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre under the notifications Annexure-C and Annexure-T. The court highlighted the arbitrary nature of the second notification dtd. 25/9/2013 and emphasized that the appointed candidate had been working for more than eight years, thus rejecting the petitioner's claim based on the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre, citing irregularities in the appointment process and seeking consequential reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to participate in the selection process under the second notification dtd. 25/9/2013 and emphasized that the appointed candidate had been working for more than eight years, thus rejecting the petitioner's claim based on the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013.
Issues: Appointment dispute, irregularities in the appointment process, failure to participate in the selection process under the second notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the appointed candidate had been working for more than eight years, thus rejecting the petitioner's claim based on the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands rejected.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The petitioner an aspirant for the post of Anganwadi Worker is before this Court challenging the appointment of 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District, under order bearing No.Oo.Ni.Ha/ICD/Anka/Ma/2014-15 dtd. 19/5/2014 (Annexure-L) and for consequential reliefs.
2. Heard Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent under Annexure-C notification dtd. 5/7/2013 invited applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker in various Villages including that of Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner being eligible submitted her application to the post of Anganwadi Worker, Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre with all the relevant documents. Learned counsel would submit that on 3/9/2013 provisional select list was published and it indicated selection of one Smt. Saraswathi as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. It is submitted that there was no appointment in pursuance to notice dtd. 5/7/2013 to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre and without assigning any reason and without canceling the earlier notification dtd. 5/7/2013, it is submitted that fresh notification dtd. 25/9/2013 was issued inviting applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner had not applied in pursuance to the second notification. Pursuant to the second notification dtd. 25/9/2013, the 5th respondent was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.17963/2014 seeking for a direction to consider her representation and to pass appropriate order as per earlier notification dtd. 5/7/2013. This Court by order dtd. 6/12/2019 disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents to pass orders furnishing necessary details and communicate the decision to the petitioner. As the respondents failed to comply with the said order, the petitioner filed CCC No.808/2021 wherein the respondents placed on record endorsement (Annexure- T) dtd. 21/1/2020 and stated that since the petitioner had failed to produce residential certificate her candidature was rejected. Challenging the said endorsement (Annexure-T) dtd. 21/1/2020 as well as seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in pursuance to the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel contends that non-assigning any reason for abandoning the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013 and the action of the respondents in issuing second notification dtd. 25/9/2013 to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel would submit that in pursuance to the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013, the petitioner was the more merited candidate and she ought to have been selected as Anganwadi Worker, but no reasons are assigned to abandon the process and to issue fresh notification dtd. 25/9/2013 to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. Since the petitioner was more meritorious candidate in pursuance to the notification dtd. 5/7/2013, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre.
5. Admittedly the petitioner was applicant to the post of Anganwadi Worker of Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre in pursuance to the notification (Annexure-C) dtd. 5/7/2013. For the reasons assigned in the endorsement (Annexure-T) dtd. 21/1/2020 the Selection Committee took decision to initiate fresh recruitment process and issued notification dtd. 25/9/2013 inviting fresh applications to fill the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. The endorse
The appointed candidate's tenure of more than eight years was a significant factor in rejecting the petitioner's claim based on the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013.
The court ruled that the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker must adhere to government guidelines, and challenges to such appointments require timely action and proper standing.
Eligibility criteria for government positions must be met, and discrepancies in application and residency status can result in the cancellation of appointments.
The court ruled that expired select lists for promotions necessitate a fresh recruitment process, ensuring all eligible candidates are considered.
Selection guidelines take precedence over advertisements in recruitment processes, especially in cases involving designated community preferences.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.