Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 61579 (KAR)

SMT. ANJANI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/105154/2016 · 2025-12-01

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16842 WP No. 105154 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105154 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ANJANI GANSHYAM BANDEKAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: ANGANVADI WORKER, R/AT MALLAPUR, TQ: HANAWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. SMT. KUMUDA MHADEV NAIK, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: ANGANVADI WORKER, R/AT KERAVDI, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND PANCHYAT RAJ, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND PANCHYAT RAJ, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01. 3. CHIEF SECRETARY, ZILL PANCHYATH, KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE GOVERNMENT Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16842 WP No. 105154 of 2016 ORDER DATED:04.10.2007 BEARING NO. ¸ÀA.UÀæD.C.¥À.558 UÁæ.¥ÀAPÁ 2005 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND REGULARIZE THEM BY PAYING ALL SERVICE BENEFITS AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. “Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no.1 to 3 to consider the case of the petitioners as per the Government order dated:04.10.2007 bearing no. ¸ÀA.UÀæD.C.¥À.558 UÁæ.¥ÀAPÁ 2005 as per Annexure-A and regularize them by paying all service benefits. B. Issue such other writ or order directions as this Hon’ble cort deems fit under the facts circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri.Rajashekhar R. Gunjalli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 2 and Sri.Vishwananth Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 3. The petitioners are stated to have been appointed as a Balawadi Teacher by the Taluk Development Board, and their services were thereafter assigned to the Zilla Panchayat. Upon abolition of the Taluk Development Board, a Government Order - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16842 WP No. 105154 of 2016 was issued directing absorption of all persons who were appointed as Balawadi Teachers into their respective Anganwadi Centres. Although the petitioners’ services were transferred to the Zilla Panchayat, they was not absorbed into the services of the Anganwadi Centre. The petitioners, therefore, submitted a representation seeking consideration of their case in terms of the Government Order dated 04.10.2007. The said representation is yet to be considered, leading to the filing of the present petition in the year 2016. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Sri Vishwanath Hegde, submits that if the petitioners’ case has not yet been considered, the same will be done within a reasonable time. 5. The submission is placed on record. 6. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents is directed to consider the petitioners’ case in terms of the Government Order dated 04.10.2007 and pass appropriate orders, if not already passed as on today. 7. If orders have since been passed, the petition would stand rendered infructuous, and liberty is reserved to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16842 WP No. 105154 of 2016 petitioner to avail such remedies as are available in law, should she remain aggrieved. 8. If no orders have been passed, the respondents shall pass necessary orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier. 9. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC/CT-ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 101