IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.34832/2010 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. SHIVAKUMARI O.M., D/O. GURUSHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT GUNDERI VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT, CHITRADURGA.
2. CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF WOMAN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. SMT. MAMATHA J.O., W/O. H.B. VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT GUNDERI VILLAGE, ... PETITIONER HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.A. SUBRAMANI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI S.P. KULKARNI FOR SRI N.D. ONKARAPPA, ADV. FOR R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROVISIONAL LIST DATED 05.10.2010 (ANNEXURE-H), ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ANGANAWADI WORKER, GUNDERI-C CENTRE, HOLALKERE TALUK AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS CONSEQUENT UPON THE QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-H; DIRECT THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition was filed to quash the appointment of respondent No.3 as the Anganwadi Worker of Gunderi-C Centre, Holalkere Taluk and for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post.
2. The background facts of the case in brief are; that the respondents 1 and 2 issued a Notification on 01.10.2009 and invited applications to fill the post of an Anganwadi Worker at Gunderi-C Centre, Holalkere Taluk. The petitioner, claiming to be the permanent resident of Gunderi-C Village submitted the application. 3rd respondent also applied to the said post. Provisional Select List was published on 06.01.2010, in which the petitioner’s name appeared. The 3rd respondent having raised objection on 05.10.2010, another Provisional List was published. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed objections on 14.10.2010. The appointment order having been issued to the 3rd respondent, this petition was filed for the said reliefs, on the ground that the higher merit of the petitioner was not taken into consideration and the selection of 3rd respondent is arbitrary and illegal.
3. Heard learned advocates on both sides and perused the record.
4. Indisputedly, last date to submit the application in response to the notification dated 01.10.2009 was on or before 24.10.2009 and that the petitioner submitted her application on 21.10.2009. As she had not enclosed her PUC certificates along with the said application, the same was produced before the last date i.e., 24.10.2009.
5. The comparative merit of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent with reference to the SSLC qualification is 65.12% and 63.84% respectively. Two bonus marks were awarded to the 3rd respondent with reference to her PUC qualification and thus, her merit was determined at 65.84%. Though, the petitioner had submitted her PUC marks cards before the last date for submission of the application, the same was not taken into consideration, which becomes clear from the proceedings of the Selection Authority as at Annexure-R1. The relevant portion reads as follows:
16 UÀÄAqÉÃj- 3 3 E®è æêÀÄw ªÀĪÀÄvÀ PÉÆA.ºÉZï. ©.
«dAiÀÄ PÀĪÀiÁgï UÀÄAqÉÃj ¸ÀzÀj CAUÀ£ÀªÁr PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄÄ d£À¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄà gÉUÉ EvÀgÉ ªÀUÀðPÉÌ EzÀÄÝ, CA.PÁ.PÀvÉðAiÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝ §AiÀÄ 3 d£À C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è zÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀ°è æêÀÄw ªÀPÀĪÀiÁj N.JA. EªÀgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï. CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, Cfð ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ CAwªÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¦.AiÀÄÄ. . CAPÀ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¦.AiÀÄÄ. . CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ ¤ÃqÀzÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj «zÁåºÀðvÉUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¨ÉÆãÀ¸ï CAPÀ PÉÊ©qÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ, JA§ ±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ¥ÁgÀ ì£À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, G½zÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À°è ºÉaÑUÉ CAPÀUÀ½ gÀĪÀ æêÀÄw ªÀĪÀÄvÀ PÉÆA.ºÉZï. ©. «dAiÀÄ PÀĪÀiÁgï UÀÄAqÉÃj, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ M¥Àà DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
6. Merely because the PUC Marks card was not submitted along with the application dated 21.10.2009 by the petitioner, the same could not have been omitted from consideration, as the PUC Marks card was submitted before the last date stipulated for submission of the applications i.e., on or before 24.10.2009.
7. In the matter of comparative evaluation of the candidatures of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, there is invidious discrimination by respondent Nos.1 and 2. If two bonus marks had been added to the petitioner’s percentage of SSLC marks, as was done in the case of 3rd respondent, the petitioner would have stood above the 3rd respondent. Thus, the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent, who has lesser percentage of marks when compared to that of the petitioner i.e., with reference to PUC qualification is concerned, is arbitrary. There is merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that despite higher percentage of marks of the petitioner, her case was not considered by the Selection Authority and by arbitrarily rejecting the PUC marks cards produced before the last date prescribed for submission of the applications, the 3rd respondent was illegally favoured. The selection process conducted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the matter of selection and appointment of Anganwadi worker at Gunderi-C Centre, Holalkere Taluk, suffers from arbitrariness.
8. In the case of Smt. H. Lakshmamma vs. The State of Karnataka, rep. by its Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department and Others, reported in ILR 2014 Kar 926, the appellant and the 4th respondent therein, were the applicants to the post of Anganwadi worker. Without consideration of merit of the 4th respondent by the Selection Authority, appointment order was issued to the appellant. The said action, when assailed, it was held that the action of the Selection Authority appointing the appellant as Anganwadi worker without considering the objections of the rival applicant i.e., the 4th respondent is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Selection Authority for reconsideration. The said decision has application to the present case.
In the result, writ petition is allowed and the proceeding of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Annexure-H, insofar as it relates to the selection of respondent No.3 herein to Gunderi-C Anganwadi Centre, Holalkere Taluk quashed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the cases of the petitioner and the respondent No.3 afresh by keeping in view the PUC qualification of both the candidates. The process of selection shall be completed within six weeks period commencing from the date a copy of this order becomes available, on its production by the petitioner or otherwise.
Till such action is undertaken and concluded i.e., within six weeks period, the 3rd respondent shall be entitled to function as the Anganwadi worker of Gunderi-C Centre and her further continuance or otherwise shall stand regulated as per the proceeding of the selection authority.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE ca