- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100527 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: BALAVVA BHAJANTRI W/O. SURYAKANT, AGE. ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. ANGANWADI HELPER, R/O. 686 KAMPATTI VILLAGE, POST. JODKURLI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591213. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SRISHAKTI BHAVANA, AKKAN MARG, DOUBLE ROAD, MM EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590017. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, OPP. IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT OFFICE, RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI. 6. SUSHILA NAIK W/O. RAMESH NAIK @ SUSHILA BHIMAPPA NILAGERI, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYED, R/O. KEMPATTI VILLAGE, POST. JODKURLI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 – NOTICE SERVED; SRI SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R6.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.106314/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION OF RESPONDENT NO.6 HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The appellant/respondent No.5 before the writ Court is in appeal under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 05.08.2024, in W.P.No.106314/2023 (S-RES), wherein the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 appointment of appellant/respondent No.5 as Anganawadi Worker is set aside and respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to reconsider the application for selection strictly in accordance with guidelines and observations made in the order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, in pursuance to the notification inviting applications to fill up the post of Anganawadi Worker in Kempatti village of Raibag taluka, the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 submitted applications. Respondent No.5 was selected and appointed under Order dated 21.07.2023 (Annexure-A). The said order of appointment of respondent No.5 was challenged in W.P.No.106314/2023. The petitioner urged two main grounds, that respondent No.5 had higher education qualification and that respondent No.5 had not claimed priority as a widow and the widow certificate was produced subsequently along with objections to the provisional selection list. 3. Learned single Judge accepted the contention of non claiming priority as widow and non submission of death - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 certificate of her husband, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of appointment of respondent No.5 as Anganawadi Worker and remanded the matter back to respondent No.4 to consider the application of the candidates for selection to the post of Anganawadi Worker strictly in accordance with the guidelines and the observations made in the order. 4. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.5 is before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel Sri K.Anandkumar, for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri Sourabh Hegde, for respondent No.6 and learned Government Advocate Sri G.K.Hiregoudar, for respondents No.1 to 4 and perused the writ appeal papers. 6. Sri K.Anandkumar, learned counsel for appellant/ respondent No.5 submitted that learned single Judge committed an error in coming to the conclusion that respondent No.5 has not claimed priority as a widow and that respondent No.5 had not produced the death certificate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 of her husband along with the application. He submits that respondent No.5 produced death certificate of her husband along with objection filed to the provisional selection list which was considered by the authorities. Further, learned counsel would submit that while uploading the application, due to technical problem, application had not taken widow certificate produced by respondent No.5. In that regard learned counsel would place reliance on the letter dated 18.09.2021, produced along with a memo dated 09.04.2025. Referring to the said letter it is contended that such technical problem should not deprive a candidate from consideration of her case for selection. Thus, the learned counsel Sri K.Anandkumar would pray for allowing the writ appeal and to set aside the order of the learned single Judge. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Sourabh Hegde, for respondent No.6 would support the order passed by the learned single Judge and further submits that letter dated 18.09.2021 would not come to the aid of the appellant/respondent No.5 since respondent No.5 has not claimed priority of widow in her application. He invites - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 attention of this Court to the application of respondent No.5 produced as Annexure-D and submits that in the column ‘marital status’, respondent No.5 has stated as ‘married’ and not indicated that she is a ‘widow’. Further he submits that the guidelines with regard to selection and procedure to be followed for selection, requires uploading of necessary documents along with the online application itself. He submits that respondent No.5 had not uploaded the death certificate of her husband to claim the status of ‘widow’. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Further, in support of his contention learned counsel Sri Sourabh Hegde places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited and another vs. H.L.Kaveri and others1. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is “whether the order of the learned single Judge requires interference?” 1 (2020) 3 SCC 108. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 10. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons. 11. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 applied for the post of Anganawadi Worker in Kempatti Anganawadi Center. The application of respondent No.5 is produced as Annexure-D to the writ petition. A perusal of the application makes it abundantly clear that respondent No.5/appellant in the column as to ‘marital status’ has stated “married” and that respondent No.5 has not claimed priority of ‘widow’ in the application. Moreover, respondent No.5 has also not enclosed the death certificate of her husband along with the application. A person who would not claim the status of priority of ‘widow’ or who fails to claim the reservation would not be entitled for claiming such status subsequently. The letter/communication dated 18.09.2021 of the Director addressed to the Secretary to the Government, Women and Child Development Department would state that, to claim status of ‘widow’, one has to produce the ‘death certificate’ of the husband and not the ‘widow certificate’ issued by the authorities. Wherever - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 ‘widow certificate’ is uploaded, such applications have been rejected. In those circumstances, it is made clear that such candidate could not be deprived from participating in the selection process. However, in the instant case respondent No.5 has failed to claim the priority of ‘widow’ by mentioning so in her application and when she has not produced the ‘death certificate’ of her husband along with the application, it is not open for respondent No.5 to contend that the certificate now produced along with objection to the provisional selection list, is to be accepted. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in H.L.Kaveri case1 upon examining as to whether enclosing the certificates along with the application was mandatory, answered at paragraph No.14 and 15 as follows: “14. It remains undisputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of which reference has been made that the first respondent had not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and her statement on oath was found to be factually - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 incorrect and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the advertisement dated 11- 11-2013 for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reasons which although was disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.” “15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision-making process while rejecting the application of the first respondent for non-fulfilment of the necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013.” 13. The learned single Judge noticing Annexure-D application of respondent No.5 has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent No.5 has not claimed the status of ‘widow’ and has further observed that in her objections filed to the provisional selection list that she had not produced the ‘death certificate’ of her husband. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6352-DB WA No. 100527 of 2024 14. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly the writ appeal stands dismissed. 15. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE MRK CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8