- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3209 WP No. 84528 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.84528 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. LAXMI W/O. RANGESH GIRRENNAVAR, AGE: 22 YEARS,, OCC:NIL, R/O: HIREBUNDUNOOR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, BELAGAVI. 3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, OFFICE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. KUMARI RENUKA LAXMAPPA IRAGAR, AGE: 23 YEARS, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3209 WP No. 84528 of 2013 OCC: ANGANWADI WORKER, CLAIMING TO BE R/O: HIREBUDUNOOR VILLAGE, POST: HIREBUDNUNOOR TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE 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, QUASHING ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 30.09.2013 IN SAM: UUNIBHE: MAMAAAEE: AANKAAKA: GOUSEGU:13-14 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-N. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING TO RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF PETITIONER AND APPOINT HER FOR SAID POST. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the appointment of the 4th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Hirebudunoor village. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar appearing for the petitioner, the learned HCGP Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3209 WP No. 84528 of 2013 and the learned counsel Sri.Vijay M. Malali appearing for the respondent No.4. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: On 23.02.2013, the 3rd respondent is said to have issued a notification, calling for applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Hirebudunoor village. The petitioner and the 4th respondent, finding themselves eligible applied to the said post. Pursuant to the scrutiny of the documents and selection process, the provisional list of all candidates is notified and the name of the petitioner and the 4th respondent were found, they were at ranks 1 and 2 respectively. Therefore, the petitioner filed objections contending that the 4th respondent is not a resident of Hirebudunoor village, but a resident of Tallur village. The clarification is sought by the 2nd respondent from the hands of the CDPO, who confirms that the 4th respondent is a resident of the said village. Therefore, the 4th respondent is offered appointment. The offering of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3209 WP No. 84528 of 2013 appointment, has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel Sri.Santosh B.Malagoudar appearing for the petitioner contends that the 4th respondent is not a resident of the village. Therefore that is the circumstance enough for setting aside the appointment of the 4th respondent. He would submit that the appointment should be offered to the petitioner as she is 2nd in line. 5. The learned HCGP contended that the 4th respondent is a resident of Hirebudunoor village, in which the Anganwadi Kendra exists, and there can be no fault found with the appointment of the 4th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre. To steer clear the controversy, this Court directed an inspection to be caused with regard to the residence of the 4th respondent. The 3rd respondent-CDPO has filed an affidavit observing that the 4th respondent is a resident of the village, to which the notification was issued for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3209 WP No. 84528 of 2013 appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. The report of inspection and panchnama drawn, reads as follows: “ªÁ¸À¸ÀܼÀzÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ªÀgÀ¢ ²æêÀÄw : gÉÃtÄPÁ vÀAzÉ ®PÀëöät FgÀUÁgÀ ¸ÁQãÀ : »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀ ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ EªÀgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ : 23/02/2013 gÀ ²±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀÄAvÉ »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è SÁ° EgÀĪÀ CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. W.P.No: 84528/2013 gÀAvÉ ²±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀzÀwÛ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀ¸Àå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉð £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸À«Äw EªÀgÀÄ 3 £Éà respondent DVzÀÄÝ, 4 £Éà respondent DVgÀĪÀ ²æêÀÄw : gÉÃtÄPÁ vÀAzÉ ®PÀëöät FgÀUÁgÀ ¸ÁQãÀ : »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ. EªÀgÀÄ »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ SÁAiÀÄA gÀºÀªÁ¹ EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀjUÉ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀgÀt ªÀiÁ»w ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06/02/2025 gÀAzÀÄ »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¨ÉÃn ¤Ãr ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ²æêÀÄw : gÉÃtÄPÁ vÀAzÉ ®PÀëät FgÀUÁgÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 23/02/2013 gÀ°è »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ SÁAiÀÄA gÀºÀªÁ¹ DVzÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV, ²æêÀÄw : gÉÃtÄPÁ vÀAzÉ ®PÀëät FgÀUÁgÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¨Á®å¢AzÀ®Æ CfÓ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ, 1 £Éà vÀgÀUÀw¬ÄAzÀ 10 £Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ËæqsÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀÄ »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ gÀºÀªÁ¹AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, »gÉçÆzÀ£ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÄ CAvÁ ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” 6. In the light of the said circumstance, the petitioner cannot claim that the 4th respondent is not a resident of Hirebudunoor village. The other circumstance is that the petitioner is second rank in the select list, while the 4th respondent is first. Therefore merit wise as well, the 4th respondent stands above the petitioner. The only - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3209 WP No. 84528 of 2013 circumstance projected is belied by the report of the inspection of the CDPO. 7. In that light, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture, would submit that, if any vacancy is existing, or would ensure, the candidature of the petitioner could be considered. Since this is a process of direct recruitment, no direction to that effect can be given, but it is for the State to consider the case of the petitioner, in the event there is any existing vacancy in any of the nearby Anganwadi Kendras. 9. With the aforesaid observation, finding no warrant to interfere with the appointment of the 4th respondent, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4