- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10315 WP No. 8704 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8704 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. KAVYA N W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, WARD NO.1, HANUR TOWN-571439 HANUR TALUK CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SMT. P.C. SUNITHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD AND WOMEN WELFARE HANDICAP AND SENIOR CITIZEN REHABITATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR CHILD AND WOMEN WELFARE DEPARTMENT, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313 CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT 3. THE PLANNING OFFICER THE CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KOLLEGALA-571440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT 4. THE PLANNING OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY, ANGANVADI SELECTION COMMITTEE KOLLEGALA-571440 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10315 WP No. 8704 of 2019 CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT 5. NAGARATHNA M., W/O KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O AMBEDKAR STREET, HANUR-571439 KOLLEGALA TALUK CHAMARAJA NAGARA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELANKATAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; RESPONDENT NO.5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-J DATED 10.01.2019 PASSED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CHAMARAJNAGAR, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question an order bearing No.G¤ZÁ:ªÀĪÀÄE:L¹r:CAPÁPÀ:DAiÉÄÌ:2018-19/983 dated 10.01.2019 passed by respondent No.2 in terms of which, the respondent No.5 was appointed as an Anganwadi worker at Hanur-4 village, Kollegala Taluk, Chamarajanagar District. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner in place of respondent No.5. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10315 WP No. 8704 of 2019 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 had issued a notification inviting applications to fill up vacancies of Anganwadi Workers at Hanur village, Kollegala Taluk, Chamarajanagar District, under the Child Development and Welfare plan. The petitioner filed an application and uploaded all the prescribed documents. The respondent No.5 also filed an application against the said notification. The respondent No.2 after scrutinizing the applications, short-listed the applications filed by the respondent No.5 and another person and published a provisional select list. The petitioner filed objections to the provisional select list contending that she had secured 63.68% marks in the qualifying examination, while respondent No.5 had secured 59.68% marks. She also contended that her application was rejected on the ground that she did not submit her residential certificate, though the same was uploaded online. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 without considering the objections, erroneously issued an order appointing the respondent No.5 to the post of Anganwadi worker. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10315 WP No. 8704 of 2019 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was better qualified than the respondent No.5 and therefore, she ought to have been appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker. She contends that instead of appointing the petitioner, the respondent No.5 was appointed. She contends that the petitioner had uploaded her certificate of residence but yet, the respondent No.2 in order to disqualify the petitioner had deliberately held that the petitioner did not upload her certificate of residence. Learned counsel further invited the attention of the Court to the online application submitted by the petitioner and contended that the certificate number as well as the date of the certificate were uploaded. She therefore, contends that there was no impediment for the petitioner to upload the document namely, the certificate of residence. Thus, she contends that the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner is arbitrary and colourable and calls for interference. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the other hand contended that the petitioner was a resident of Ward No.1 of Hanur village, while Anganwadi was situate at Ward No.4 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10315 WP No. 8704 of 2019 therefore, she was not selected. He therefore, contends that the impugned order appointing the respondent No.5 is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 6. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 had invited the application to the post of Anganwadi worker at Hanur village, Centre No.4, Kollegala Taluk, Chamarajanagar District, which was reserved for scheduled caste. The petitioner belonged to scheduled caste and had completed her qualifying examination securing 63.68%. The respondent No.5 was also a resident of Hanur village and belonged to scheduled caste, who had secured 59.68% marks in the qualifying examination. The application of the petitioner seems to have been rejected on the ground that she did not upload her certificate of residence along with online application for recruitment. However, a copy of the online application, which is placed on record discloses that the petitioner had mentioned the certificate of residence issued by the Tahsildar by mentioning certificate number as - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10315 WP No. 8704 of 2019 well as its date of issuance. A copy of the certificate of residence is placed on record, which shows that the petitioner is residing at Hanur village in Ward No.1. The contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner is not residing within the ward, where the Anganwadi is situate, cannot be accepted as the order rejecting the application of the petitioner does not mention that the petitioner is residing in a different ward than the ward where the Anganwadi is situate. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed in part. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It is made clear that if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to be appointed, the respondent No.2 shall take all measures to appoint the petitioner in the place of respondent No.5. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46