- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13939 WP No. 106875 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106875 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT.DEVAKKA W/O. SHARANAPPA MADAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NAGARISHIKOPPA, TQ: RON DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, MULTI- STORYED BUILDING, BENGALURU-1. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN and CHILD DEVELOPMENT, GADAG, AT TQ: & DT: GADAG. 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT and PLANNING OFFICER, RON, TQ: RON, DT: GADAG. 4. SMT. SANGEETHA W/O. SHANKRAPPA CHAVAN, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: ANGANAWADI WORKER, R/O: NAGARISHIKOPPA TANDA, PO: GOGERI TQ: RON, DT: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2018 BEARING NO.U.NI.GA/MA MA A E/ANKANKA/ MANYATHE/2018-19/804 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO SL NO.6 IN RESPECT OF ANAGAWADI CENTRE NO. NAGARISHIKOPPA-193 OF NAGARDISHIKOPPA VILLAGE IN RON TALUKA DIST: GADAG, VIDE "ANNEXURE-L". ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ANAGANAWADI WORKER FOR CENTRE NO.193 OF NAGARISHIKOPPA VILLAGE OF RON TALUKA WITHIN A TIME FRAME AND ETC., Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13939 WP No. 106875 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELMINARY HEARING 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 calling in question an order dated 04.10.2018 by which respondent No.4 is appointed as a Anganwadi Worker to Nagarishikoppa Village. 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri P.G. Mogali appearing for the petitioner, learned HCGP Smt. Kritilata R.Patil appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel Shri H.M. Dharigond appearing for respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner and respondent No.4 were participants in a selection process for the appointment of the post of Anganwadi Worker pursuant to a notification issued on 20.02.2018. The provisional select list was notified on 19.06.2018 and the contention is without considering the objections of the petitioner, respondent No.4 is now appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13939 WP No. 106875 of 2019 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contend that Nagarishikoppa Tanda, where respondent No.4 resides, is entirely different from Nagarishikoppa Village, in which the petitioner resides. The notification calling for applications for Anganwadi Worker was for Nagarishikoppa Village and not Nagarishikoppa Tanda. In that light, respondent No.4 could not have been appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker, as against the claim of the petitioner. It is his solitary submission in challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4. 5. Learned HCGP taking this Court through the guidelines issued for the purpose of appointment of Anganwadi Worker and would submit that Nagarishikoppa Village and Nagarishikoppa Tanda are one and the same as they come within the one revenue village and consideration of the cases of those applicants in such revenue village is a norm that is depicted in the guidelines. She would therefore seek dismissal of the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13939 WP No. 106875 of 2019 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Both, the petitioner and respondent No.4 were participants in the process of selection for the purpose of appointment of Anganawadi Worker in Nagarishikoppa Village. The sole contention as observed herein above is that the petitioner is from Nagarishikoppa Village and respondent No.4, the appointee belongs to Nagarishikoppa Tanda. As submitted by the learned AGA that such circumstance is regulated by the guidelines. The guidelines, insofar it is germane, reads as follows: 4) MAzÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è MAzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÉÃAzÀæ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, D PÉÃAzÀæUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁæªÀÄ / ªÁqÀðgÀªÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DºÁ餸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. MAzÀÄ ¥ÀPÀë D UÁæªÀÄ / ªÁqÀðgÀªÀjAzÀ CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁUÀzÉà ºÉÆÃzÀ°è 7 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÉ ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. JgÀqÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁjAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀܽÃAiÀÄjAzÀ Cfð ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁUÀ¢zÀÝ°è ¥ÀÅ£À: 10 ¢ªÀ¸ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÉ ¥ÀæPÀluÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹ CvÀåAvÀ ¸À«ÄÃ¥ÀzÀ UÁæªÀÄ / ªÁqÀð£À CºÀð C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌUÉ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13939 WP No. 106875 of 2019 8. The afore-quoted clause is indicative of the fact that if a notification seeking appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker falls within two villages, but comes under one revenue village. The said those villages coming under the said revenue village will have to be given credence for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioner, those applicants for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. In the light of the said circumstance, the afore- quoted clause would clearly indicate that both the petitioner and respondent No.4 belong to one revenue village would be that the petitioner belongs to Nagarishikoppa Village and respondent No.4 belongs to Nagarishikoppa Tanda. Barring this submission, there is no other submission made with regard to the entitlement to the appointment of the petitioner. 9. In the light of the said submission, being clear in terms of the guidelines itself, there is no warrant of interference with the order of appointment of respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13939 WP No. 106875 of 2019 No.4 to the post of Anganwadi Worker, finding no merit to the petition. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in another Anganwadi Kendra coming within the same jurisdiction, there is a vacancy and the respondent No.4 is now made to work at two places. The petitioner can be considered for appointment as Anganwadi Worker to the Kendra where there is vacancy. While mandamus to that effect would not lie, it is open for the respondent's State to consider and take necessary action in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observation, without interfering with the appointment of respondent No.4, the petition lacking merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 108