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) 16996

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S.HEMALEKHA
CHAITRA SHAMBANNA VADDAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 104294/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.104294 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

CHAITRA SHAMBANNA VADDAR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NAGANUR, POST: KATUR, TQ: MUNDAGOD, DIST: KARWAR-581346.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MANJANNA E WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT, Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALORE-560001.

OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.14 10:53:20 +0530

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MG ROAD, KARWAR-581301.

3. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER MUNDGOD, BASAVANA BIDI, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: KARWAR-581349.

4. JAYANTI D/O. SIDDAPPA VADDAR SMT. JAYANTI W/O. HANUMAYYA VADDAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BYAGAWADI, POST. HERUR, TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581148.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. H.N.GULARADDI AND SRI. G.D.PATIL, ADV. FOR R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS THE ANGANWADI WORKER OF NAGANUR PLOT ANGANWADI CENTER IN MUNDGOD TALUKA KARWAR DISTRICT BY AN ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 27/05/2025 AT NO.(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:11)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:16)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:7)(cid:8)/2025-26/587 VIDE ANNEXURE-V TO THE WRIT PETITION; CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS THE ANGANWADI WORKER OF NAGANUR PLOT ANGANWADI CENTER IN MUNDGOD TALUKA AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the legality of the appointment order dated 27.05.2025, whereby respondent No.4 came to be appointed as an Anganwadi Worker of Nagnoor plot, Anganwadi Center, Mundgod Taluk.

Brief Facts :

2. The post of AnganWadi Worker for Nagnoor plot, Anganwadi Center was notified by the competent authority by notification dated 07.03.2025. The petitioner applied for the said post claiming to be the permanent resident of Naganoor Village, residing in the close proximity to the said Anganwadi Center and possessing the requisite educational qualification. Respondent No.4 also applied and was shown as selected in the provisional list on basis of the higher marks. The petitioner filed objections to the provisional list, specifically contending that respondent No.4 was married and residing in Byagawadi Village, Hangal Taluk, Haveri District, and therefore was not a local resident as required under the guidelines. The authorities issued appointment order dated 27.05.2025 in favour of respondent No.4.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents/State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the residence within Anganwadi area is a foundational eligibility condition, not a preference. Respondent No.4, after her marriage on 17.05.2023 shifted her residence to her husband's village in Haveri District. The Aadhar card, Marriage Certificate and Sakala proceedings clearly establish that respondent No.4 did not possess a valid residential certificate as on the date of filing of the application. The selection based solely on marks, is contrary to the modified guidelines dated 18.11.2024.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that the selection and appointment were made in accordance w

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