- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6561-DB WA No. 100155 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH 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.100155 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. RUDRAVVA D/O VEERANAGOUDA TEMBADMANI AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/AT BANNIKOPPA, POST. BANNR, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ S. SATANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF ANGANWADI WORKER, HAVERI-581110. 3. THE CEO COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF ANGANWADI WORKER, HAVERI-581110. 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF ANGANWADI WORKER, SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205. 5. THE TALUKA SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER AND MEMBER COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6561-DB WA No. 100155 of 2023 OF ANGANWADI WORKER, SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205. 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT. WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF ANGANWADI WORKER, HAVERI-581110. 7. MANJULA D/O BASAVANNEPPA KOPPAD AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/AT. BANNIKOPPA, POST. BANNUR, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205. 8. SMT. LAXMAVVA NINGANGOUDA PATIL AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/A. BANNIKOPPA, POST. BANNUR, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8; NOTICE TO R7 IS NOT NECESSARY) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2023, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.100542/2019 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6561-DB WA No. 100155 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 12.1.2023 passed in WP No.100542/2019. 2. The appellant herein was respondent No.8 in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge considering the writ petition filed by respondent No.8 herein allowed the same, quashed the appointment of the appellant/respondent No.8 as Anganawadi Worker and directed the respondent/authorities to consider the case of the writ petitioner and take a decision within an outer limit of one week. 3. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience. 4. The relevant facts are that the application for appointment of Anganawadi Worker to various Anganawadi Centres including Bannikoppa Centre of Shiggaon Taluk was issued, pursuant to which, the petitioner as well as respondents No.7 and 8 made applications. The official respondents considering the applications, issued provisional selection list on - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6561-DB WA No. 100155 of 2023 7.7.2018 and appointed the writ petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Bannikoppa Anganawadi Centre. Respondents No.7 and 8 filed objections to the provisional selection list. Considering the said objections filed by respondents No.7 and 8, final selection list dated 12.12.2018 was issued appointing respondent No.8 as Anganawadi Worker of Bannikoppa Anganawadi Centre. Being aggrieved, the writ petition was filed. 5. The learned Single Judge noticing that the writ petitioner, who was a widow, which was mentioned in application and had produced document at the time of considering the objections, allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointment of respondent No.8 as Anganawadi Worker and directed the official respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved, respondent No.8 has filed the present writ appeal. 7. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri. Basavaraj S. Satannavar for the appellant, learned AGA for the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6561-DB WA No. 100155 of 2023 official respondents No.1 to 6 and learned counsel Sri. S.B. Doddagoudar for respondent No.8/writ petitioner. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petitioner having not produced any document at the time of making the application to show that she was a widow, the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.8/writ petitioner and learned AGA would submit that the writ petitioner produced the document at the time of consideration of objections to the provisional selection list and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. 10. The submissions made by the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record have been perused. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner in her application for the post of Anganawadi Worker has, in the column as to whether she belongs to a prioritized category, mentioned that she is a widow. It is forthcoming from Annexure-E that at the time of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6561-DB WA No. 100155 of 2023 considering the objections to the provisional selection list, the petitioner has produced document to demonstrate that she is a widow. It is forthcoming that in the appointment to the post of Anganawadi worker, preference is required to accord to a widow. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner in her application has mentioned that she is a widow and also produced document in that regard at the time of considering the objections. It is forthcoming from the copy of the application made by the appellant (Annexure-F) that she is not a widow. Hence, the writ petitioner was eligible to be appointed to the post of Anganawadi Worker. 12. Learned Single Judge noticed that the writ petitioner had enclosed a copy of the Death Certificate of her husband prior to consideration of objections raised by respondents No.7 and 8. Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the appointment made to respondent No.8 and has rightly directed consideration of the case of the petitioner. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6561-DB WA No. 100155 of 2023 13. It is clearly forthcoming that the writ petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Anganawadi Worker, as she is a widow and also produced document in that regard. 14. The appellant has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 15. The official respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner in terms of direction issued by the learned Single Judge within a period of three weeks from today. 16. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3