- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15047 WP No. 85244 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 85244 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. VISHALAKSHI GAJANANA ACHARI, D/O GAJANAN TIMMAPA ACHARI. AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT, IN HABBUCHITTEE ANGANWADI, R/O.HABBUCHITTE, POST: HALADIPUR,. TQ:HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-I, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 01. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, KARWAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HONNAVAR, TQ:HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 4. SMT. SAROJINI @ SAROJA SHANKAR DESHBHANDARI W/O. LAXMAN DESHBHANDARI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HABBUGADDE, POST: HALADIPUR, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15047 WP No. 85244 of 2013 TQ:HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.11.2013 IN NO.U.NI.KAA/MA MA A E/AUM. KAA.AUM.SA/GOW.SE/13-14/3565 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, KARWAR, DIST:UTTARA KANNADA/RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-J INSOFAR AS 11)HONAVAR, SL.NO.2/HABBUCHITTE ANGANAWADI CENTRE. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT IN HABBUCHITTE ANGANAWADI OF HONAVAR TALUK AS PER GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 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 seeking the following prayer: A. Quash the impugned ORDER dated 23.11.2013 in No.U.Ni.Kaa/Ma Ma A E/Aum.Kaa.Aum.Sa/Gow.Se/ 13-14/3565 passed by the Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Welfare, Karwar, Dist:Uttara Kannada/Respondent no.2 herein vide Annexure-J insofar as 11)Honavar, Sl.No.2/Habbuchitte Anganawadi centre, in the interest of justice and equity. B. Direct the Respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganawadi assistant in Habbuchitte Anganawadi of Honavar taluk as per guidelines issued by the Government of Karnataka. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15047 WP No. 85244 of 2013 C. Pass such order or orders which this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner and respondent No.4 were both participants in a selection process initiated by the State for appointment of Anganwadi worker. The respondent No. 4 comes to be selected while the claim of the petitioner that only she has to be appointed as Anganwadi worker comes to be declined. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier working as Anganwadi Assistant for 10 years and in terms of the circular issued by the State, only those persons who are working as Anganwadi Assistants should be given preference while appointing an Anganvadi worker. 4. While the submission may merit some semblance of consideration, the recruitment has taken place 12 years ago and what the learned counsel for the petitioner projects, is an issue of preference. ‘Preference’ ostensibly would come about only when both are equal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15047 WP No. 85244 of 2013 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the selected candidate is more meritorious than that of the petitioner. 6. In the light of the solitary plea projected by the petitioner being that she should be appointed as Anganwadii worker on the score that she was already working as Anganwadi Assistant for 10 years, would not merit any acceptance, in the light of the appointment taking place 13 years ago and no interim order being granted at the hands of this Court, it is too late in the day to consider the grounds set out by the petitioner unless the grounds set out were palpable and demonstrable arbitrariness, which I do not find in the case at hand. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition, the petition is rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE kmv CT-ASC