- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:145 WP No. 76775 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.76775 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BASAVARAJESHWARI W/O. SURESH HULAGADI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BASARKHOD, HAGARIBOMMANHALLI TALUKA, DIST: BELLARI. 2. SMT. S.M. KALAMMA W/O. LATE SHARANAIAH, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT: BASARKHOD, HAGARIBOMMANHALLI TALUK, DIST: BELLARI. 3. KUM. P. SEETHAM D/O. P. HULGAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, R/AT: BASARKHOD, HAGARIBOMMANHALLI TALUK, DIST: BELLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.S.CHALWADI, ADVOCATE) (VK NOT FILED) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD, WELFARE DEVELOPMENT. BELLARI, DIST: BELLARI. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.21 11:27:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:145 WP No. 76775 of 2013 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD, WELFARE DEVELOPMENT, HAGARIBOMMANHALLI, BELLARI, DIST: BELLARI. 4. SMT. THAVERALINGAVVA W/O. HEMANANAIK, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI WORKER, R/O: BASARKHOD THANDA, HAGARIBOMMANHALLI, DIST: BELLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 2/8-01-2013, BEARING NO. UNIBA/MA MA A E/AM KHAKA/AYKE/201-13/4735 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A). ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT CONDUCT THE FRESH SELECTION PROCESS TO THE POST OF ANGANWADI WORKER IN RESPECT OF THE BASARKHOD CENTRE OF HAGARIBOMMANAHLI TALKU, BELLARI DISTRICT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:145 WP No. 76775 of 2013 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. Registry to delete the name of learned counsel Sri.G.M.Gangadhar and print the name of learned counsel, Sri.S.S.Chalwadi. 2. The petitioners are before calling in question the order dated 02.01.2013 by which the 4th respondent is appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Basarkhod village of Hagaribommanahalli taluk. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondents-State and the counsel representing respondent No.4. 4. The 3rd respondent, the Child Development Project Officer, Department of Women and Child Welfare, issues a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for selection to the post of Anganwadi Worker to the Anganwadi Centres of Basarkhod village of Hagaribommanahalli taluk. The 4th respondent comes to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:145 WP No. 76775 of 2013 be selected and appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarte in the year 2013. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State would submit that preference was given to the widows while considering the cases of the applicants for the post of Anganwadi Worker. 6. This Court on the said submission on 31.07.2024 had passed the following order: “Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submits that selection of respondent no.4 was under priority for widow. Since none of petitioners were widows as of notification, they would not fall within zone of consideration. As such, they would not have locus to question selection of respondent no.4. Learned counsel for petitioner seeks time to secure instructions. Re-list on 13.08.2024. Petitioner to produce copy of Death Certificate of petitioner no.2.” 7. The Court directed the petitioners to ascertain as to who are the widows amongst the petitioners to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:145 WP No. 76775 of 2013 become eligible even for consideration of their cases at this juncture. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are not widows and preference cannot be granted to them. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, she is a widow and can be considered. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the basic qualification for consideration of the cases for Anganwadi Worker is a pass in SSLC. The 2nd petitioner has only passed 9th standard, is an admitted fact, while the 4th respondent, the appointee has completed SSLC. Though both are widows, the qualification is fulfilled only by the 4th respondent in terms of the notification. The 2nd petitioner who does not fulfill the qualification of a pass in SSLC, cannot be seen to contend that the 4th respondent’s appointment is contrary to law. Therefore, at this juncture, after the appointment of the 4th respondent 11 years ago, this Court would not now put the clock back and consider the cases of these - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:145 WP No. 76775 of 2013 petitioners who are admittedly not eligible to be appointed in terms of the notification. 9. Petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54