IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.5191/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN SMT NIRMALA R W/O SRINIVASA D/O SRI RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KOLAGURKI VILLAGE SOMAYAJALAHALLI POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138.
(BY SRI KESHAV R AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT OF DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE KUMBARAHALLI MULABAGAL ROAD, N.H.75 KOLAR - 563 101 ... PETITIONER 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO) SRINIVASAPURA TOWN SRINIVASAPURA - 563 135 KOLAR DISTRICT 4. THE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDINGS DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
THE KARNATAKA WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT I FLOOR, NEW KOLAR HOSPITAL BUILDING, KUVEMPU NAGAR, KOLAR - 563 101 6. SMT. SUSHMA S W/O SIDDA REDDY AGE MAJOR R/O KOLAGURKI VILLAGE SOMAYAJALAHALLI POST SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 138 (BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 ... RESPONDENTS NOTICE TO R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED TEMPORARY SELECTION LIST DT.23.10.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ANGANAWADI WORKER, KULAGURKI VILLAGE, SOMAYAHALAHALLI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT IN PLACE OF THE R-6/SMT SUSHMA S W/O SIDDA REDDY, R/O KULAGURKI VILLAGE, SOMAYAHALAHALLI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT ALONG WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS IN TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT.23.09.2017 ALONG WITH THE GUIDELINES VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is a physically challenged person without any source of livelihood. The petitioner’s husband is also physically challenged and is without a regular source of income. The petitioner had applied for the post of anganawadi worker in the Anganawadi Centre, Kolagurki Village, Somayajalahalli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District. The petitioner is before this Court since her application was not considered and respondent No.6 has been appointed as anganawadi worker.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines governing the selection and appointment of anganawadi workers and the assistants is found in the Government Order dated 23.09.2017. It is pointed out from Clause-4 of the guidelines that whenever a physically challenged person applies for the post of anganawadi worker, priority should be given to the physically challenged person.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate, having secured instructions from the Deputy Commissioner, submitted that the application of the petitioner could not be considered by the authorities, since the petitioner herein failed to produce all the required documents along with the application which was supposed to be uploaded online.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the authorities are required to afford another opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the relevant records and thereafter consider the application made by the petitioner. This direction is required to be issued even as the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the appointment of respondent No.6 ha been finalized by the authorities. The system of uploading the applications along with all the required information may have posed some difficulty to be adhered by the persons like the petitioner who reside in remote areas and are not properly guided. If the petitioner fulfills all the requirements in terms of the guidelines whether it be educational qualification or the place of residence, the authorities are directed to reconsider the application. The sixth respondent, though served has remained unrepresented in this matter.
5. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed of.
JT/-
SD/- JUDGE