- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10317 WP No. 3841 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3841 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: P. SAKAMMA D/O SRI PORAPPA AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SANTHEBENNUR WARD, UPPARA BEEDHI, SANTHE BENNUR, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. IQBAL AHMED KHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN FOR THE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI WOMEN WORKERS, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577521. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND MEMBER SECRETARY FOR THE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI WOMEN WORKERS, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577521. 3. THE SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY FOR THE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION AF ANGANAWADI WOMEN WORKERS CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577521. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH AND MEMBER FOR THE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI WOMEN WORKERS, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10317 WP No. 3841 of 2013 CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577521. 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY FOR THE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION OF ANGANAWADI WOMEN WORKERS, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577521. 6. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI V., D/O VEERABHADRAPPA B., AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND KALAMMA TEMPLE, SANTHE BENNUR, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577521. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 3 AND 5; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL LIST, FINAL LIST AND APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 03.10.2012 VIDE "ANNEXURES-"H", "J" & "K" RESPECTIVELY IN SELECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6 FOR THE POST OF "ANGANAWADI WOMEN WORKER" AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the provisional list, final list and the appointment order issued to the respondent No.6 appointing her as Anganwadi worker. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to select her to the said post. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10317 WP No. 3841 of 2013 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 had issued a notification dated 06.08.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Anganwadi workers in various Anganwadis. The petitioner claimed that she had applied for the said post under the general merit category and also produced all her credentials to establish that she was a meritorious candidate. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 prepared a list of eligible candidates and placed it before the meeting of the selection committee comprised of respondent Nos.1 to 5. She alleged that at the said meeting, they passed an order selecting the respondent No.6 and thereafter published a provisional list on 03.09.2012 selecting Anganwadi workers for various wards of Anganwadi, which included the selection of respondent No.6 as Anganwadi worker at Santhe Bennur - 12. Thereafter, a final list was issued on 17.09.2012, following which, an order of appointment was issued appointing the respondent No.6. She contends that she had secured 48.96% of marks in qualifying examination and was more meritorious than the respondent No.6. However, the selection committee had selected the respondent No.6 based on other criteria rather than on merit. She contends that the selection committee must have indicated the reason for not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10317 WP No. 3841 of 2013 selecting the petitioner and therefore, she was discriminated vis-à-vis the respondent No.6. The petitioner has urged several grounds in support of the writ petition, which are all vague and generic in nature. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and claimed that the selection committee was biased against the petitioner and had selected the respondent No.6 owing to other consideration. He therefore, contends that the selection of the respondent No.6 is liable to be set at naught. 4. Per contra, the respondents have filed detailed objections opposing the writ petition and contended that as per the recruitment notification dated 06.08.2012, condition No.5 mandated that if an applicant is working in the same village, who had passed SSLC and has worked in the Anganwadi for more than three years, then such Anganwadi worker would be directly appointed without any further selection. It is contended that in order to help those Anganwadi helpers who were discharging their duties continuously for a period of three years, the Government had issued notification dated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10317 WP No. 3841 of 2013 15.06.2012, in terms of which, any Anganwadi worker who was working in the Anganwadi for more than three years would be preferred. It is contended that the respondent No.6 was working as an Anganwadi helper at Santhebennur village and when she applied for the post, as she completed three years as Anganwadi helper and had completed her SSLC examination, she was selected. 5. In so far as the residential status of the respondent No.6 is concerned, it is contended that the same was not insisted upon her, since as on the specified date, she was discharging her duties as Anganwadi helper in the same village for more than 06 years. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the above contentions and submitted that there is no bias against the petitioner and there is no favoritism in selecting the respondent No.6. She contends that the respondent No.6 was earlier employed as Anganwadi worker and as she fulfilled the condition No.5 stipulated in notification dated 06.08.2012, she was preferred over the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10317 WP No. 3841 of 2013 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The State Government had issued a notification dated 15.06.2012 prescribing guidelines to be followed and the eligibility criteria for appointment of Anganwadi workers. In so far as Anganwadi workers who were already working in Anganwadi, the following was the guideline prescribed: "5. CAUÀ£ÀªÁr ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉðAiÀÄgÀ£ÁßV DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ:- CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝ SÁ°¬ÄgÀĪÀ/ºÉƸÀ PÉÃAzÀæ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¹¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄjzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. GwÛÃtðgÁVzÀÄÝ PÀ¤µÀ× ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀð ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¸À®Ä Eaѹ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÉÃAzÀæPÉÌ PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½AzÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DºÁ餸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÉÄÃAiÀÄ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄ Cfð ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ CºÀðªÁVzÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄ£Éß PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. F §UÉÎ ²±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ DAiÉÄÌ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëjUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10317 WP No. 3841 of 2013 G¥À¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¥Àj²Ã°¹ DAiÉÄÌ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. MAzÉà UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è E§âgÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ ¥Á¸ÁzÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄQAiÀÄjzÀÄÝ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ°è CªÀgÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ »jvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ." 9. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.6 was already working as Anganwadi worker at Santhe Bennur, Anganwadi Kendra. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had arbitrarily selected the respondent No.6 over and above the petitioner. Besides this, the respondent No.6 has been working from the year 2012 and it is not wise to disturb her appointment now. 10. In view of the above, there is no error in appointing the respondent No.6 warranting interference in this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32