IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL Nos.1928-1929 OF 2017 (S-DIS) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PRAMEELA C K WIFE OF MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHANDAGALU VILLAGE, K.R.NAGAR-571601, MYSURU DISTRICT.
RANK IN W.P.No.42516/16-PETITIONER 2. KENDAMMA H.S.
WIFE OF SWAMINAYAKA AGED 26 YEARS RESIDENT OF YELACHAWADI VILLAGE, BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571103.
RANK IN W.P.No.43313/16-PETITIONER ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, MYSORE STREE SHAKTI BHAVAN, K.D.CIRCLE, VIJAYNAGAR, MYSURU-570 017.
4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 601.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 42516/2016 AND 43313/2016 DATED 05/01/2017.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.42516 of 2016 and W.P.No.43313 of 2016, by which the petitions were rejected, the writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. The petitioner-1st appellant filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.UNEMY/ICD/ANKAKA/VAJA/2016-17 dated 09.06.2016, whereby the 1st appellant-petitioner was removed from service of Anganawadi worker and to quash circular dated 12.10.2012 bearing No.MAMAE/422/ICD/2011 passed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner-2nd appellant filed the writ petition praying to quash the order dated 09.06.2016, whereby the petitioner was removed from service of Anganawadi worker. The petitioners claim that they were appointed as Anganawadi workers on 31.07.1995 and 13.02.2009 respectively. The petitioners-appellants herein contested in the Grama Panchayat elections. Both the appellants got elected to Chandagalu Grama Panchayat and Chikkabeechanahalli Grama Panchayat respectively. Both the petitioners-appellants were issued with the notice calling upon them to elect either one of the post i.e., post of Anganawadi worker or as a member of Grama Panchayat. Both the petitioners-appellants replied to the notice contending that post of Anganawadi worker is not a profitable job or an employment coming under the State or Central Government and as such, the question of selecting any one of the post would not arise. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 09.06.2016 in respect of both the petitioners-appellants removing them from the post of Anganawadi worker. Aggrieved by the removal from the post of the Anganawadi worker, the petitioners filed instant writ petitions challenging the order dated 09.06.2016 in respect of both the petitions.
3. The petitioners contended that the post of Anganawadi worker is non-permanent/non-substantive post appointed on honorary basis. The amount received by the petitioners for the work of Anganawadi worker is not a salary but it is only honorarium. Hence, it is contended that petitioners not being disqualified under Section 167 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 could not have removed them under impugned order. The learned Single Judge having examined the nature of duties carried on by the Anganawadi worker and the nature and position of Grama Panchayat membership, held that the work of Anganawadi worker is a continuous, which requires full time attention. Therefore, dismissed the writ petitions upholding the orders passed by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners are in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is wholly erroneous and failed to notice that the work of Anganawadi worker is temporary, one who receive only honorarium. The post of Anganawadi worker is neither an office of profit nor a substantive post. The circular dated 12.10.2012 has no statutory force and contrary to law. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to examine the grounds urged by the petitioners. Further learned counsel for the appellants relies upon Government Order dated 31.05.2017 which is produced along with the memo dated 15.04.2019 to say that the petitioners are also entitle to the same treatment.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents would submit that the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the writ petitions of the petitioners looking into the functions to be performed by the Anganawadi Worker as well as the member of Grama Panchayat. He further submits that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of the Government Order dated 31.05.2017, as the same is passed as a one time measure that too on consideration that they are all aged more than 35 years. The petitioners herein are less than 35 years and as such, are not entitle for the said benefit. Hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
7. The learned Single Judge by his detailed reasoned order has rejected the writ petitions which would not suffer from either perversity or erroneousness. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of appeal papers, we are of the view that the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge for the following reasons.
8. There is no dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Anganawadi workers on 31.07.1995 and 13.02.2009 respectively. They were working as Anganawadi workers till the year 2015. In the year 2015 both the petitioners contested the election to Grama panchayat of Chandagalu and Chikkabeechanahalli Grama Panchayat respectively. No doubt the guideline relating to the conduct of election to Grama Panchayats would permit the Anganawadi worker to contest in the Grama Panchayat elections, since it is not a post of profit. The petitioners were declared as elected to Grama Panchayats as stated above on 05.06.2015. Subsequently, the petitioners were issued with notice to retain either of the post of Anganawadi worker or Grama Panchayat membership. The petitioners replied to the said notice contending that they are not the holders of office of profit and they receive only honorarium for working as Anganawadi workers, as such, the question of retaining one post would not arise. The respondents by impugned order dated 09.06.2016 removed the petitioners from the post of Anganawadi worker. The removal from the post of Anganawadi worker is not for the reason that the petitioners are holding the office of profit or that they attract the disqualification enumerated under section 167 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, but for the reason that the Government Order dated 12.10.2012 would give option to the Anganawadi workers to retain any one of the post within one month from the date of election. The Government Order dated 12.10.2012 is issued in pursuance to letter dated 25.05.2010 issued by the Central Government, wherein the Central Government had made it clear that if a person is permitted to continue in both the post of Anganawadi worker as well as Member of Grama Panchayat, it would result in the person being away from the work of Anganawadi worker which would affect the implementation of Child Development Project and would affect the very object of the project. It is to be noted that the duties and responsibilities of an Anganawadi worker is almost full time work. They have to take care of the children throughout the day and they have to feed the children nutritious food made available to them under the project. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the activities carried on by the Anganawadi workers and the nature of position as Member of the Grama Panchayat has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners cannot contend that the job of the Anganawadi worker is not either continuous or it would not require full time attention or to contend that said job is a part time job. We see no error or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo dated 15.04.2019 enclosing Government Order dated 31.05.2017, wherein the Government as a special case reinstated 39 Anganawadi workers, who were above the age of 35 years, who had contested the election and got elected as Panchayat Members. The learned counsel relying on the said Government Order sought for the same benefit. On going through the said Government Order, it is clear that the said 39 Anganawadi workers were above the age of 35 years and they were not entitled for reappointment as Anganawadi workers, as such, as a special case, as one time measure the Government passed the Government Order. The petitioners herein are aged less than 35 years and it is not for this Court to extend the benefit which as a special case the Government has extended under the above Government Order dated 31.05.2017. The petitioners are not similarly placed persons to seek benefit of Government Order dated 31.05.2017. No material is placed before the Court to indicate that they are similarly placed persons. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in the appeals. Hence, the writ appeals stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SMJ CT:bms