- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:719 WP No. 77835 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.77835 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. JALMALA D/O. VEERABADRAPPA KANDAGAL, @ SMT. JAYASHREE W/O. MALLIKARJUN HUNAGUND AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL (HOUSE HOLD), R/O: WARD NO.5, NEAR STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN AND CHILD WELFARE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.21 11:27:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:719 WP No. 77835 of 2013 NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT. 4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, MUDHOL. 5. THE TAHASHILDAR, MUDHOL, TAHASHILDAR OFFICER, MUDHOL. 6. SMT. SUNITA W/O. HOLABASAYYA @ SUNITA D/O. APPAYYA VAJJARAMATTI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NOW ANGANAWADI WORKER, R/O: HALAGALI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.03.2013 PASSED BY R-3 IN G¤¨Á/ªÀĪÀÄE/CAPÁ/ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ/2012-13 APPOINTING R-6 TO THE POST OF ANGANAWADI WORKER OF WARD NO.5 MUDHOL PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION. AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE CANDIDATURE OF PETITIONER TO THE POST OF APPOINTMENT OF ANGANAWADI WORKER OF WARD NO.5 MUDHOL. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:719 WP No. 77835 of 2013 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 13.03.2013, by which the 6th respondent is appointed to the post of anganwadi worker of the 5th respondent-village. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil for the respondent-State. Facts in brief germane are as follows; 3. The State in the Department of Women and Child Welfare, notifies certain guidelines for appointment of anganwadi workers in the State of Karnataka. Pursuant to the notification and the guidelines, applications are called from the hands of eligible candidates to be appointed as anganwadi workers. On 06.08.2012, the 6th respondent is said to have applied to the post and on 09.8.2012 the petitioner. After the selection process, it transpires that the 6th respondent is appointed. Appointment of which is objected to by the husband of the petitioner, on the score that the 6th respondent-the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:719 WP No. 77835 of 2013 appointee was not the resident of the same village for which the appointment was sought for, and therefore the appointment should not be granted in favour of the 6th respondent. That having not met its favour from the hands of the State, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the 6th respondent does not belong to the same village and that is the only disability against the appointment as an anganwadi worker of the said village. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner does belong to the same village and is equally meritorious to be considered for the post of anganwadi worker in Ward No.5 of Mudhol village. 5. The HCGP would vehemently refute the submission to contend that the 6th respondent, who is appointed pursuant to a selection process, also belongs to Mudhol village. The Tahsildar after an enquiry, has issued a certificate, which is appended to the petition, depicting that the 6th respondent belongs to Mudhol village and even the voter ID also depicts the 6th respondent belonging to the said village. She would - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:719 WP No. 77835 of 2013 submit that the petition deserves to be rejected, as the appointment is made 12 years ago and in accordance with law. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP representing the respondent-State. 7. The afore narrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events, are not in dispute. The appointment of the 6th respondent is what is questioned by the petitioner, appointment is to the post of anganwadi worker. The challenge is on a solitary score that the 6th respondent does not belong to the same village for which the notification is issued for appointment as anganwadi worker. The village is Ward No.5 of Mudhol, Bagalkot district. The challenge is bound to fail, for the reason that the Tahsildar who was directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to the residence of the 6th respondent, has conducted an inquiry and rendered a certificate that the 6th respondent belongs to Mudhol and the residence comes within the jurisdiction of the notification for appointment as anganwadi worker. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:719 WP No. 77835 of 2013 8. The selection committee having gone into the aspect of eligibility of the petitioner and the 6th respondent, and having found that the 6th respondent does belong to the said village, no fault can be found with the appointment of the 6th respondent. The appointment is in the year 2013 and today in 2025, 12 years thereafter, it would not be just to set aside the appointment, unless the appointment projected any arbitrary or illegal action on the part of the State, which is not in the case at hand. Therefore finding no merit in the petition, petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1