- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:171 WP No. 104440 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 104440 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: JAYASHRI D/O. BIKKU BAJARE, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BADDIGERI, POST: GUNJAVATI, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581349. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MG ROAD, KARWAR-581301. 3. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER MUNDGOD, BASAVANNA BIDI, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: KARWAR-581349. 4. GEETA D/O. BALACHANDRA MARATHI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOUSE NO. 470, SHIVAJI NAGAR, MAINALLI, TQ: MUNDGOD, MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.13 15:02:34 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:171 WP No. 104440 of 2025 DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581349. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. K.RAGHAVENRA RAO AND SMT. V.VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) 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 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS THE ANGANWADI WORKER OF BADDIGERI PLOT ANGANWADI CENTER IN MUNDGOD TALUKA KARWAR DISTRICT BY AN ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 27.05.2025 AT NO. 2025-26/587 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONSERNED; CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER AS THE ANGANWADI WORKER OF BADDIGERI PLOT ANGANWADI CENTER IN MUNDGOD TALUKA AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:171 WP No. 104440 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the respondent-department, appointing respondent No.4 as an Anganwadi worker of Baddigeri plot, Anganwadi center, Mundgod Taluka, Karwar District, and for consequential direction to appoint the petitioner in her place. 2. The respondent-department issued notification dated 07.03.2025, inviting application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker for Baddigeri plot Anganwadi center. Both, the petitioner and respondent No.4 submitted application pursuant to the said notification. The petitioner claims that he is the resident of Baddigeri Village, resides within a short distance from the Anganwadi center, and has secured highest marks in PUC II year. It is her grievance that respondent No.4, who claims widow status, is not a resident of Baddigeri Village and resides in different village situated at a distance of about 10 km. It is stated that the appointment of respondent No.4 is contrary to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:171 WP No. 104440 of 2025 guidelines governing Anganwadi appointments. Respondent No.4 came to be selected and appointed by order dated 27.05.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the State has produced the modified guidelines dated 18.11.2024 and the notification dated 07.03.2025, which governed the selection process. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that i) as per the guidelines, the Anganwadi worker must be a resident of the same village and within the prescribed radius, which respondent No.4 does not satisfy, ii) the petitioner has secured highest academic marks and resides closer to Anganwadi center, which ought to have been weighed by the authorities, iii) the residents certificate produced by respondent No.4 is allegedly recent and does not establish continuous residence, iv) preference granted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:171 WP No. 104440 of 2025 on the ground of widow cannot override basic eligibility conditions. 5. Learned AGA for the State contends that the selection process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the modified guidelines dated 18.11.2024 and the notification dated 07.03.2025. The guidelines provide for priority/reference to widows, subject to satisfaction of eligibility norms, which respondent No.4 fulfils. The residence eligibility documents of respondent No.4 were verified by the competent authorities before final selection. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 7. It is contended that after due verification of all the eligibility documents by the competent authorities, respondent No.4 was selected in accordance with the governing guidelines, namely the modified guidelines dated 18.11.2024. It is contended that respondent No.4 is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:171 WP No. 104440 of 2025 widow, which is a recognized preferential category under the guidelines and the preference accorded to such category is cannot be diluted merely on basis of comparative academic marks or proximity claimed by the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is essentially an attempt to seek re-appreciation of the fact and substitution of the Court's view for that of the selecting authority which is impermissible under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and that no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of guidelines is made out against respondent No.4 and the appointment dated 27.05.2025 is legal, valid and sustainable in law. 9. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 10. The selection of the post of Anganwadi is governed by the executive guidelines and the notifications issued by the State from time to time. The modified guidelines dated 18.11.2024 clearly recognizes preference - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:171 WP No. 104440 of 2025 to certain categories, including widow, subject to verification of eligibility and documents by the competent authority. The records produced by the respondent-State disclose that respondent No.4 was considered under the preferential category and her documents relating to residence and eligibility was scrutinized by the authority. Mere fact that the petitioner secured higher marks or resides closer to the Anganwadi center does not, by itself, confer an indefensible right to appointment, particularly when the guidelines provide for priority categories. 11. It is well settled law that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over selection decisions, nor does it substitute its own assessment for that of competent authority, unless the decision is shown to be perverse, mala fide or in violation of the statutory or binding norms. No such infirmity is demonstrated in the present case. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:171 WP No. 104440 of 2025 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5