IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NO.2793 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. PREMA.S W/O K.P.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS BHOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE DYAVANAHALLI POST SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429 (BY SRI S.B. TOTAD FOR SRI SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATES) …APPELLANT AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHIEF DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT SHIVAMOGGA – 577201 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY ANGANWADI HELPER SELECTION COMMITTEE SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577429 4. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA W/O YUVARAJA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS BHOMMANAHALI VILLAGE DYAVANAHALLI POST SORABA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577429 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R1-R3; SRI KALYAN KUMAR H.S. ADVOCATE FOR R-4) *** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2019 IN W.P.NO.1874/2016 (S-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant is the fourth respondent in the writ petition filed by the fourth respondent in this appeal. The issue concerns appointment to the vacant post of Anganawadi Helper. Both the appellant and fourth respondent applied to the post. The appellant was appointed. The fourth respondent challenged the appointment of the appellant by filing a writ petition. By the impugned order, the writ petition has been allowed.
3. The dispute concerns the educational qualification for the said post, which is set out in the Government notification issued on 4th July 2015, the English translation of which reads thus:
“(2) Education Qualification: Confirmation (pass) mark sheet of 4th standard should be annexed. If the education qualification is above 4th standard by the applicant, it should be limited to 9th standard. Appointment of local will be based on Higher education qualification. Education qualification above 9th standard will not be considered,”
4. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant was not qualified as she was admittedly holding higher qualification over and above 9th standard. Therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the appointment of the appellant.
5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that clause No.(2) quoted above means that even if a candidate who is possessing higher qualification over and above 9th standard, for considering appointment to the post of Anganawadi Helper, his higher education above 9th standard shall not be considered. He submitted that appellant, as stated, is having higher qualification, but he claimed that the qualification higher than 9th standard should not be considered. He further submitted that even the 4th respondent is not qualified.
6. We have considered the submissions. We have already quoted clause No.(2) prescribing educational qualification to the post of Anganawadi Helper. It provide that mark sheet of 4th standard must be annexed. It is specifically stated that if the educational qualification is higher than 9th standard, the candidate will not be considered. The last sentence of clause No.(2) cannot be read in isolation and it should be read with first part, which reads ‘if the education qualification is above 4th standard by the applicant, it should be limited to 9th standard; which means that if applicant is possessing education qualification higher than 9th standard, he becomes ineligible. That is precisely the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order.
7. As regards the 4th respondent (writ petitioner), the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding that the 4th respondent is eligible and suitable for appointment to the post of Anganawadi Helper. The only direction issued is to consider the case of the 4th respondent for appointment to the said post. It is obvious that the 4th respondent can be appointed as an Anganawadi Helper provided otherwise she is eligible.
8. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out to interfere in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, application IA No.1 of 2019 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is also dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VK