IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

WRIT APPEAL NO.100539 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SAVITRI BHOOPAL KAMBLE

@ SMT. SAVITRI MAYUR MASNAIK,

AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. NIL,

R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, RAIBAG,

TALUK. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DIRECTOR,

WOMEN & CHILD WELFARE

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,

M.S. BUILDING, BANGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT, BELAGAVI,

CHANDRASHEKAR

L K A A X T M TI A M N ANI TALUK & DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-590016.

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR

L L A oc X a M ti A on N : K H A IG T H TI M CO A U N R I T 3. MEMBER SECRETARY AND PROJECT OFFICER,

OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ICDS,

DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT,

RAIBAG, TALUKA RAIBAG & DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.

4. SMT. SUDHARANI RAMESH KAMBLE

AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,

R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR, WARD NO.16,

RAIBAG, TALUKA-RAIBAG & DIST. BELAGAVI-591317.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07-02-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.111886/2019 (S-RES), IN ALLOWING THE SAID WRIT PETITION, BE KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE SAID WRIT PETITION NO.111886/2019 (S-RES), FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

Respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge is before this Court under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2023 in W.P.No.111886/2019, whereunder respondent No.4’s appointment as Anganawadi worker is set aside with a direction to recover the salary, as her appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker is illegal.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge. The appellant was respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 herein was petitioner before the learned Single Judge.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.Deepak S. Kulkarni for respondent No.4/appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Sharad V. Magadum for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra A. Mali for petitioner.

Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

4. The third respondent under notification dated

25.10.2018 called applications to fill up the post of Anganawadi worker at Raibag Pattana Panchayathi, Ward No.16 called as ‘Ambedkar Nagar Anganawadi Center’ and in pursuance to the said notification, the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 applied for the post of Anganawadi worker. The petitioner applied enclosing residential certificate to establish that she is the resident of Ward No.16. However, respondent No.4, who is resident of Ward No.15, applied for the post of Anganawadi worker contending that Ambedkar Nagar falls within Ward Nos.15 and 16 of Raibag Pattana Panchayathi. Respondent No.4 was selected and appointed as Anganawadi worker, Ambedkar Nagar Anganawadi Center. The said selection and appointment of respondent No.4 was challenged by the petitioner in the above stated writ petition. Learned Single Judge on the ground that the fourth respondent is resident of Ward No.15, set aside the appointment of fourth respondent as Anganawadi worker directing respondent No.2 to re-consider the issue afresh at the earliest, with a further direction to recover the salary paid to the fourth respondent, as her appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker is illegal. Questioning the said order of the learned Single Judge, petitioner is in appeal.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Deepak S. Kulkarni for r