IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL No.3028 OF 2019 (S-R) BETWEEN:
SMT. KALPANA H. M. WIFE OF RAJU R., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ANGANWADI TEACHER, RESIDING AT HEELAGODU VILLAGE, HARIDRAVATHI POST, KEREHALLI HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 574 208.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI KESHAVAMURTHY H. B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, DISTRICT OFFICER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 425.
3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, HAKREKOPPA, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 425.
4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 401.
5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER, SAGARA TALUK, SAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 401.
6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER, HOSANAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 418.
7. SMT. POORNIMA K.M., WIFE OF NAGARAL K., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HEELAGODU, HARRIDRAVATHI (POST), HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 412.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RRESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.32446 OF 2016 (S-RES) DATED 26.06.2019 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2019, passed in writ petition No.32446 of 2016 by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petition and directing the official - respondents to complete the selection process pursuant to the notification dated 02.03.2014 and another relief, respondent No.7 in the writ petition has filed this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous.
3. Heard learned counsels.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. That on 02.03.2016, the official - respondent notified the post of Anganawadi Assistant at Helegodu and during the process of selection and appointment, respondent No.7 before the learned Single Judge requested for transfer from Hakrekoppa to Helegodu, which was not considered. Hence, appellant filed a writ petition No.12710 of 2015 before this Court and by an order dated 16.10.2015, this Court dismissed the said writ petition, with a direction to the appellant to submit a representation to the respondents and the respondents shall take appropriate decision on the representation. In this background, the official - respondents modified the earlier notification to the extent of filling up the post of Anganawadi Teacher at Helegodu, by transferring the appellant who was working as Anganawadi Assistant at Hakrekoppa. Questioning the same, writ petition was filed by the respondent No.7 herein before the learned Single Judge.
5. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Prima facie, it is evident that the official - respondents could not have issued the corrigendum to the earlier notification dated 02.03.2015 and consequently, transferred the appellant to Helegodu. It is obvious that it is done only with a view to help respondent No.7 in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition, with a direction to complete the selection process in terms of the notification dated 02.03.2015, within a period of one month.
6. We do not find it appropriate to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Considering I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the appeal would be a futile exercise. Hence, the same is rejected.
Pending I.As’. stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE nvj