- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 200187 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SUDHARANI W/O YUVARAJ AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI HELPER R/O KUDMUD TANDA ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASHANT.B.WAJANTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI DISTRICT AND PRESIDENT OF ANGANWADI WORKER’S SELECTION COMMITTEE, KALABURAGI 585102 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND MEMBER OF ANGANWADI ASSISTANT / ANGAWADI WORKER’S SELECTION COMMITTEE, KALABURAGI 585102 Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, AND MEMBER SECRETARY OF ANGANWADI ASSISTANT / ANAGANWADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, ALAND 585302 5. THE CHIFE EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHYAT AND ASSISTANT PRESIDENT OF ANGANWADI ASSISTANT / ANGANWADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, KALABURAGI 585102 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE, ALAND 585302 7. THE TALUKA HEALTH OFFICER AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE, ALAND 585302 8. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE, ALAND 585302 9. SMT. SUMITRA W/O VILAS CHAVAN AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O KUDMUD TANDA, TQ: KAMALAPUR DIST: KALABURAGI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1 TO R4 & R8; SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R5; SRI SHAMBULING S. SALIMATH, ADV. FOR R9; NOTICE TO R6 & R7 – SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26-06-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.202847 OF 2023 (S-RES) AND CONFIRMED - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 BY REVIEW PETITION NO.200060/2024 DATED 25-07-2024 BY ALLOWING THIS APPELLANT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.202847/2023 (S-RES), wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No.9 came to be allowed. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that, the respondent-authorities invited an application for the appointment of Anganawadi Assistant and Anganawadi Helper. The appellant as well as the respondent No.9 have filed the online applications for the said post. The name of the respondent No.9 had figured in the provisional selection list issued by the authority. The appellant objected to the same and submitted a representation - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 seeking rectification of mistake in application and thereafter, the authority passed the order dated 07.07.2023 appointing the appellant as an Anganawadi Assistant at Kudmuda Thanda, Aland, Kalaburagi. The respondent No.9 challenged the same by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the authority to appoint the respondent No.9 as an Anganawadi Assistant. Being aggrieved, this appeal. 3. Sri Prashant B. Wajantri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the appellant is more meritorious than the respondent No.9. By inadvertence, the appellant has mentioned her education qualification in the online application as 8th standard. However, the appellant has submitted 9th standard marks card which has been verified by the authorities and thereafter the appointment order was issued. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider these aspects. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Ambuja vs. The State of Karnataka and others1. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 4. Sri Mallikarjuna C. Basareddy, learned Government Advocate submits that the authorities have verified the records and found that the appellant has secured more marks than the 9th respondent in the 9th standard examination. The authorities by taking note of the bona-fide error of the appellant, considered the candidature of the appellant and issued the appointment as Anganawadi Assistant. He seeks to sustain the order of the authority dated 07.07.2023. 5. Per contra, Sri. Shambuling S. Salimath, learned counsel for the respondent No.9 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the name of the 9th respondent has figured in provisional selection list. However, the respondent – authorities 1 W.A.No.200257/2024 dated 21.03.2025 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 illegally considered the appellant marks card and other documents which are forged and appointed her as an Anganawadi Assistant. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has held that the appellant cannot submit the document later and seek for consideration of her candidature which is impermissible. The said finding is correct and does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and 8, the learned counsel for respondent No.9 and meticulously perused the materials available on record including the original records made available. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the material available on record. 7. The pleading and material on record indicates that the 3rd respondent invited the applications for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 appointment of Anganawadi Assistant and Anganawadi Helpers vide notification dated 30.06.2021. The appellant and respondent No.9 have filed the online applications seeking for selection to the post of Anganawadi Assistant and Anganawadi Helper to Kudamud Thanda Anganawadi Centre. It is not in dispute that the appellant in her online application has indicated her education qualification as 8th standard. The respondent – authorities issued provisional selection list as per Annexure-D, wherein the 9th respondent is shown as a provisionally selected candidate for the post of Anganawadi Assistant in question. The appellant submitted the representation to the authorities seeking rectification of error in uploading the application along with the marks card indicating that she has secured more marks than the 9th respondent in the 9th standard examination and sought for consideration of her candidature for the appointment to the post of Anganawadi Assistant. The authority after securing the report from the jurisdictional Block Education Officer, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 passed the order dated 07.07.2023 appointing the appellant to the said post. 8. The learned Single Judge after considering the material available on record, has come to the conclusion that the consideration of the appellant’s candidature based on her marks card is impermissible as she failed to furnish the requisite marks card along with the application and the subsequent production of the marks card is impermissible. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid finding of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the view taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Ambuja referred supra. It would be useful to extract the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment for easy reference. The relevant paragraphs No.9 to 11 are extracted herein below: “9. The respondent No.2 in its meeting held on 18.10.2022 considered the residential certificate submitted by the appellant and found that the appellant is more meritorious than the other candidate and issued the appointment order dated 05.01.2023 at Annexure-F. Admittedly, the appellant has obtained the residential certificate much prior to the last date for filing of an application to the post in question and she has - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 filed the application in which the number of residential certificate is found which corroborates with the residential certificate accepted by the authority while considering the objections in its meeting dated 18.10.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the similar cases held that the non-production of certificate along with an application is curable defect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda referred supra held as under; “7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.” 10. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt.Purad Netravathi referred supra at paragraph No.5 held as under; “5. That apart, insofar as the residential certificate produced by the respondent No.5, it is no doubt true that the notification dated - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 12.01.2010 would indicate that the said certificate is to be issued by the Tahasildar. In the instant case, a residential certificate no doubt has been produced by the respondent No.5, which is issued by another Authority, namely the Secretary of Gram Panchayat. The learned Single Judge in this regard has arrived at a conclusion that the same is a curable defect. In this regard, what is also to be taken note is that, the appellant in any event does not dispute the position that respondent No.5 is a resident of Upanayakanahalli and therefore, in any event, the same cannot be considered as a disqualification. Further, with regard to the contention that a subsequent notification in the year 2010 has been issued, despite the earlier notification of the year 2009 not being concluded, the said contention would not be open to be considered at the instance of the appellant inasmuch as the appellant in any event has taken part in the selection process under the subsequent notification of the year 2010 and as such, the appellant cannot approbate and reprobate in a matter of selection.” 11. Similar view is taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Miss. Kavitha S.S. and in the case of Smt.Smitha M. K. referred supra. The relevant paragraphs of the decisions in the case of Smitha M.K., is extracted herein below; “6. The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, selected candidate 4th respondent herein had not produced the residential certificate along with her online application. The petitioner is before this Court, challenging the appointment of 4th respondent only on the ground that residential certificate of 4th respondent is not produced along with her online application and could not have been permitted to be produced subsequently. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has not questioned or disputed the residence of 4th respondent. Admittedly, the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 petitioner is a resident of Mavanuru village. The 4th respondent-appointee had obtained the residential certificate well before the last date for submitting the application i.e., on 09.11.2017 itself and submitted the same subsequent to the last date for submitting the application. Non-production of residential certificate is a curable defect. But the residential certificate shall be obtained before the last date for submitting the application. If the residential certificate is obtained before the last date for submitting the application, it could be produced subsequently. If the residential certificate is obtained subsequent to the last date for submitting the application, the said certificate cannot be accepted. This Court in the matter of selection of Anganawadi Worker in W.P.No.No.5336/2018 (supra) on 03.09.2021 at paragraphs 4 and 5 has held as follows: “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent under notification dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-B) invited applications to fill up the post of Anganawadi Assistant at Kattepur Anganawadi Centre. The applications were called online and the candidate were required to upload the relevant documents through online portal. The petitioner had applied by uploading all necessary documents including residential certificate. As the petitioner’s name was not found in Provisional Selection List, the petitioner said to have filed objection to the Provisional Select List. The objection was considered and endorsement was issued stating that the petitioner has not uploaded residential certificate. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention to Annexure-D, residential certificate which was uploaded along with the application. 5. A perusal of endorsement of Annexure-E dated 31.12.2018, it is seen that the petitioner’s application was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has not - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 uploaded residential certificate along with the application. The Non-uploading of residential certificate is a curable defect. The petitioner ought to have been provided with an opportunity to produce the residential certificate. The qualification prescribed for the post of Anganawadi Assistant is pass in 9th Std. In rural area a woman candidate who is having qualification of 9th Std cannot be expected to be a computer literate. Moreover, there is no sufficient infrastructure in rural areas. The petitioner has to depend on the computer/internet centers for uploading the application. In that circumstance, non- uploading of any of the documents need not result in rejection of the application but the authorities ought to have provided an opportunity to all such candidates who have not uploaded one or the other documents.” The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Appeal No.4807/2022 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was with regard to answering the OMR Sheet in the language indicated in the notification. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that since the advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up application form and also attempting of answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed.” 9. Keeping in mind, the enunciation of law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, we are of the considered view that the respondent-authorities are justified in considering the marks card submitted by the appellant and consequential issuance of the appointment - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 order in her favour. The jurisdictional Block Education Officer has submitted the report indicating that the documents submitted by the appellant are genuine. Admittedly, the appellant has secured more marks than the 9th respondent in the 9th standard examination which is the qualification prescribed for the selection of Anganawadi Assistant. Mere incorrect entry in the online application by the appellant cannot be a ground to reject her candidature. Hence, she has acquired requisite qualification to the post in question, as is evident from the marks card produced by the appellant at Annexure-F4. The respondent-authorities by taking note of the higher merit of the appellant, has passed the order dated 07.07.2023 and the said order is passed after due verification of the record and after securing the report from the Block Education Officer. We are of the considered view that the official respondents are justified in appointing the appellant to the post of Anganawadi Assistant. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2543-DB WA No. 200187 of 2024 10. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ appeal is allowed. ii) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.06.2024 passed in WP.No.202847/2023 (S-RES) is hereby set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent No.9 is dismissed. iii) The respondents No.1 to 8 are directed to re-instate the appellant as Anganawadi Assistant of Kudamud Thanda Anganawadi Centre, Aland, Kalaburagi, if she is relieved from the services. iv) No orders to cost. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT: PS