- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10894 WP No. 84372 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 84372 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. ARUNA GALATAGI D/O. RAMAPPA GALATAGI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. PHALABHAVI,TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT, BELGAUM, BELGAUM DIST. 3. THE PROJECT OFFICER CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ICDS, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT, RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. SMT. KAMALAVVA TELAGADE W/O. DURGAPPA TELAGDE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.01 15:22:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10894 WP No. 84372 of 2013 R/O. PHALABHAVI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. R.K.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.G¤¨É:ªÀĪÀÄCE:CAPÁPÀ:U˸ÉÃUÀÄ:13-14/2204, THE SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF ANGANAWADI WORKER AT PHALABHAVI VILLAGE (TEGUR FARM), TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELGAUM PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SELECT AND APPOINT THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ANGANWADI WORKER AT PHALABHAVI VILLAGE (TEGUR FARM) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) 1. In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Quash the order dated 26.09.2013 issued by the 2nd Respondent bearing No.G¤¨É:ªÀĪÀÄCE: CAPÁPÀ:UÉÆøÉÃUÀÄ:13-14/2204, the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Anganawadi - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10894 WP No. 84372 of 2013 Worker at Phalabhavi Village (Tegur farm), Tq.Raibag, Dist. Belgaum produced at Annexure-A as illegal. b) Direct the 2nd Respondent to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganawadi worker at Phalabhavi Village (Tegur Farm). c) Pass such other order or direction, this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of the case.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 26.07.2011, the respondent No.3 issued a notification inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of ‘Anganawadi workers’ to the villages of Kudachi Constituency, Raibag Taluka. In pursuance of the said notification dated 26.07.2011, the petitioner applied for the post of ‘Anganawadi worker’ in Phalabhavi Village (Tegur Farm-Ward No.3) along with relevant documents. It was contended that the petitioner had secured 451 marks (72.16%) in SSLC examination and had passed PUC examination. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10894 WP No. 84372 of 2013 3. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 published a provisional selection list indicating the name of respondent No.4 to the post of ‘Anganawadi worker’, to which the petitioner filed objections inter alia contending that the respondent No.4 is not a resident of Ward No.3 and the petitioner was more meritorious candidate than the respondent No.4. 4. Being aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering the objections of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.66858/2011, which was disposed off by this Court vide final order dated 20.11.2012 directing the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. 5. The order dated 20.11.2012 of this Court is reads as under: “The grievance put forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner has a better merit to be appointed to the post of Anganawadi worker in respect of Phalabhavi village, Raibag Taluk. In the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10894 WP No. 84372 of 2013 provisional list, the name of the fourth respondent has been indicated as the selected candidate. It is in that regard the petitioner has made objection to the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as being more meritorious. The said objection has not yet been considered by the respondents and it is in that circumstance the petitioner is before this Court praying that the case of the petitioner be considered. 2. Similar contentions had arisen for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.70209/2012 disposed of on 19.10.2012. This Court while disposing of the same had directed the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner and dispose of the same before the appointment order is issued to the fourth respondent. 3. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with similar directions to the official respondents to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and only if the petitioner is not entitled to the consideration of her case, thereafter the appointment order may be issued to respondent No.4.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10894 WP No. 84372 of 2013 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order vide Annexure-A selecting and appointing the respondent No.4 to the post of the ‘Anganawadi worker’. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.09.2013, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 7. A perusal of the material on record in particular the impugned order will indicate that the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, nor the same can be said to be contrary to law warranting interference of this Court in the present petition. It is also pertinent to note that respondent No.4 who was appointed as an ‘Anganawadi worker’ pursuant to the impugned order which was passed on 26.09.2013, has been working in the said post for more than 12 years. Consequently, at this stage, the question of interfering in the same and dislodging her from the said post does not arise, especially when there is no interim order in the present petition and that the appointment of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10894 WP No. 84372 of 2013 the respondent No.4 is subject to outcome of the present petition. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby disposed off without interfering with the impugned order. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMM / Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1