RENUKA W/O LATE SHRIKANT MALASHETTI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/102012/2018 · 2025-12-01
M Nagaprasanna
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37589 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37589 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16858 WP No. 102012 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102012 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
RENUKA W/O LATE SHRIKANT MALASHETTI, AGE: 30 YARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: HADALI VILALGE, TQ: NARGUND, DIST: GADAG-582202. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, GADAG, DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, GADAG-582102. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, GADAG-582102. 4. Deputy DIRECTOR WOMAN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, GADAG-582102. 5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYATI NARGUND, TALUKA PANCHAYATI OFFICE, NARGUND-582207. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16858 WP No. 102012 of 2018
6. TALUKAK SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, NARGUND-582207. 7. TALUKA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICE, NARGUND-582207. 8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, NARGUND-582207. 9. MAYAVVA D/O MAYAPPA NAVALLI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: HADALI VILLAGE, TQ: NARGUND, DIST: GADAG-582202. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4, R6 & R8;
SHRI S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SHRI H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE F9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT HE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONERS PRODUCED VIA ANNEXURES B-B13 AND E-E5 IN ACCORDNACCE OF GUIDELINES AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2018 VIDE ANNEUXRE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16858 WP No. 102012 of 2018
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
“WHEREFORE the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to: a. Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents' authority to consider the representation and objection of the petitioners produced via Annexure E dated 4/11/2017 to the Respondent No 8, Annexure E 1 dated 19/12/2017 to the Respondent No 2, Annexure E 2 dated 19/12/2017 to the Respondent No 4, Annexure E 3 dated 19/12/2017 to Respondent No8, Annexure E 4 dated 5/2/2018 to Respondent No 4 And Annexure E-5 dated 14/11/2017 to Respondent No 2 in accordance of guidelines. b. Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 6/2/2018 vide Annexure F passed by the Respondent No 2 to 8 as far as appointment of Respondent NO 9 to the post of Anganwadi teacher Haddli village, c. Any other order or Writ the Hon'ble High Court deems Fit may be passed.”
2. The petitioner and the private respondent were participants in a selection process initiated for the post of Anganwadi worker, Anganwadi Center at Hadali Village. The petitioner is not selected and respondent No.9 is selected. The challenge to the selection is primarily on two grounds. One, the
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16858 WP No. 102012 of 2018
selected candidate does not belong to the said village and the other is that respondent No.9 had not uploaded the complete documents as was necessary for consideration of appointment. 3. Learned counsel Shri H.M. Dharigond and the learned HCGP in unison would now submit that the petitioner himself has produced Annexure-C3, which depicts that the selected candidate does belong to the same village. Both the petitioner and respondent No.9 are widows. If both of them are widows, the guidelines would clearly indicate or otherwise, preference should be given to the more meritorious. Respondent No.9 is admittedly more meritorious. Therefore, there is no warrant of interference with the appointment so made to respondent No.9. The petition lacking in merit thus stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 132