SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14638

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S.HEMALEKHA
SMT H TEJASHWINI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 100456/2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.100456 OF 2026 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. H. TEJASHWINI W/O. RANGASWAMY K., D/O. HULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, HOUSE NO. 93, NEAR ANGANAVADI SHALE, KATRAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLIGATTA POST, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583130.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNILKUMAR P.BANGARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, M ANJANNA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND E CHILD DEVELOPMENT, DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZEN EMPOWERMENT, Digitally signed b y M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.28 10:26:08 +0530

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PRESIDENT SELECTION COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TB DAM ROAD TSPL BUILDING, HOSAPETE/VIJAYANAGAR-583201.

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR MEMBER SECRETARY SELECTION COMMITTEE, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, HOUSE NO.4A, BAPUJI NAGAR, 1ST WARD, KUDLIGI, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583101.

4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND VICE PRESIDENT SELECTION COMMITTEE, ZILLA PANCHAYAT VIJAYANAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR-583101.

5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO)

DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, HOUSE NO.4A, BAPUJI NAGAR, 1ST WARD, KUDLIGI VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583101.

6. SMT. S.B.DEEPA D/O. SANNA BHIMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, KATRAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLIGATTA POST, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583130.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT NO. 6 TO THE POST OF ANGANWADI HELPER VIDE FINAL LIST DATED 23/06/2025 BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2, 3 AND 4 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE–F; ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.02.2025 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-E, E1 AND E2; AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 5.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the final selection list dated 23.06.2025 appointing respondent No.6 to the post of Anganwadi helper at Katrahalli Village, Kudligi taluk (Annexure-F) and for a direction to consider her objections dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure-E series).

3. Brief facts:

Pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 12.06.2024 issued by the competent authority, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker and Anganwadi helper. The petitioner applied for the Anganwadi helper. A provisional list was published on 07.02.2025 (Annexure-D). The petitioner filed objections on 13.02.2025(Annexure-E series). Thereafter, the final selection list dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-F) was published appointing respondent No.6. The grievance of the petitioner is that her objections were not considered prior to publication of the final list and finalization of the selection list without disposal of the objection violates principles of natural justice.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the selection has been conducted strictly in accordance with the notification and applicable guidelines and respondent No.6 has been selected on merit. It is submitted that writ petition cannot re-appreciate comparative merit.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

6. It is well settled that the judicial review in matters of selection is confined to examination of decision making process and not the decision itself. The Court does not act as an appellate authority over comparative merit.

7. In the present case, though the petitioner contends that the obje

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top