- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17770 WP No. 112346 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 112346 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MALAKAJAVVA D/O. BASAPPA KALAGUDI W/O. SANGAPPA RAYANAGOUDRA, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: AT/POST: HALLUR-587115, TQ and DIST: BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WOMAN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOTE AND PRESIDENT OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT/ASSISTANT, BAGALKOT. 3. VICE-PRESIDENT OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT/ASSISTANT, BAGALKOT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BAGALKOT. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT/ASSISTANT, BAGALKOTE, DIST: BAGALKOTE. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17770 WP No. 112346 of 2019 5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYAT AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT/ASSISTANT, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. TALUKA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT/ASSISTANT, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 7. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND MEMBER OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT/ASSISTANT, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BAGALKOT AND MEMBER SECRETARY OF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF ANGANAWADI ASSISTANT/ASSISTANTS, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 9. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT. 10. THE TAHASILDAR NAVANAGAR,BAGALKOT. 11. SMT.SUDHA D/O SHIVANAND KAMATAGI W/O SHRINATH KURI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: ANGANAWADI WORKER, R/O: SIDDANTH, TQ: BASAVAN-BAGEWADI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R10; R11-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.U NI BAA/MA.MA.A/AM.KAA.KA/MAANYATE/ 2019-20/679 DATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17770 WP No. 112346 of 2019 01.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.8 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 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 seeking the following prayer: a. A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing No.U Ni Baa/Ma Ma A/Am.Kaa.Ka/Maanyate/2019-20/679 dated 01.07.2019 issued by the respondent No.8 vide Annexure-F in the interest of justice and equity. b. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to appoint petitioner for the post of anganawadi Worker to Hallur Centre-1 in the interest of justice and equity. c. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2, 9 and 10 to take appropriate legal action against the respondent No.11 by considering the representation dated 19.07.2019 vide Annexure-J in the interest of justice and equity. d. Any other writ or direction from this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of acts of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17770 WP No. 112346 of 2019 to 10. Respondent No.11 though served 5 years ago remained unrepresented. 3. The State Government notifies vacancies to be filled up by calling for applications from eligible candidates for the purpose of the post of Anganawadi workers at Hallur village Center No.1. The petitioner and the 11th respondent both apply to the said post. The said applications are processed and the petitioner is not selected while the 11th respondent is selected. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 11th respondent is not even a resident of Hallur Village, but is a resident of Siddanath village, Basavana- Bagewadi taluk, Vijayanagar district, along with her husband after marriage. The learned counsel would further submit that, though the 11th respondent's marks may be more than what the petitioner has secured, would not mean that a person who is not a resident where the Anganvadi Center is situated, cannot get an appointment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17770 WP No. 112346 of 2019 5. The learned HCGP would refute the submission to contend that the appointment of the 11th respondent has come about only after verification of the domicile status of the 11th respondent and, therefore, the petitioner being less meritorious than the 11th respondent should yield to the appointment and seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsels. 7. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The 11th respondent, though served 5 years ago, has remained unrepresented. 8. Pursuant to the appointment of the 11th respondent as Anganawadi worker in the aforesaid center, the petitioner has objected to the same on the score that the selected candidate is not the resident of Hallur village Center-1. The petitioner has produced certain documents viz., the Grama Panchayath issues a certificate depicting the 11th respondent not to be a resident of Hallur village, but a resident of another village, he has also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17770 WP No. 112346 of 2019 produced the birth certificate of the 11th respondent which does not depict her to belong to Hallur village but Basavana Bagewadi, voters list is also produced which depicts that the 11th respondent does not belong to Hallur Centre but to Basavana Bagewadi as mentioned hereinabove. With all these copious documents being in place, it is understandable as to how the State could offer appointment to the 11th respondent only on the score that the 11th respondent was more meritorious than the petitioner. Merit apart, the issue is with regard to the domicile status of the 11th respondent. 11th respondent is not a resident of Hallur village is adequately demonstrated by the petitioner. Though the learned HCGP would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that these documents are not enough to undo the appointment of the 11th respondent, the submission is noted only to be rejected, as these documents are enough for consideration of the case of the petitioner and to set aside the appointment of respondent No.5. The petition thus deserve to succeed. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17770 WP No. 112346 of 2019 ORDER i. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.07.2019 bearing No.UNiBaa/MaMaA/Am.Kaa.Ka/ Maanyate/2019-20/679 is quashed. ii. The consequence of the quashment would be that the petitioner should be offered appointment if the petitioner fulfils all other criteria for such appointment. Sd/- ( M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Kmv CT:ANB