IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.796/2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU.
2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL SELECTION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (ADMN.) DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE BENGALURU.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.I.THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT R SHASHIKALA W/O V B NARAYANASWAMY 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ANGANAWADI WORKER VARADANAYAKANAHALLI R/O VARADANAYAKANAHALLI ABBALUDU PO-562106 SIDLAGHATTA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT.
2. S RADHA SUPERVISOR, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE, CHINTHAMANI-563125.
KOLAR DISTRICT.
3. SMT K P SUKANYA SUPERVISOR, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE, KANAKAPURA-562117.
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. SMT B RATHNAMMA SUPERVISOR, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE, KOLAR-563113.
KOLAR DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2016 IN APPLICATION NO.179/2004 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU; CONSQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.179/2004 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NARENDRA PRASAD J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is directed against order dated 24.3.2016 passed in Application No.179/2004 (Annexure-A) by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal” for the sake of brevity) wherein the Tribunal has partly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 herein.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Government issued Notification dated 16.05.2002 for filling up posts of Women Supervisors in the Department of Women and Child Welfare. In the said notification, it is notified that out of 1325 posts of Women Supervisors, 529 posts were to be filled from among persons who were working as an Anganawadi workers in the Department. Since applicant was working as Anganawadi worker and who was eligible to apply for the post of Women Supervisor, submitted an application claiming reservation under the Category 3A and Rural Reservation. Along with the application, applicant had produced SSLC marks card, 3A certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Shidlaghatta, Rural Reservation Certificate in Form No.1, Certificate issued by the Head Master, Government Higher Primary School, Shidlaghatta, dated 15.06.2002 for having studied from first to sixth standards, Certificate issued by Head Master, Sri Saraswathi Convent, Shidlaghatta for having studied seventh standard and Certificate issued by Head Mistress, Sri Saraswathi Convent High School, Shidlaghatta for having studied from eighth standard to tenth standard, declaring that said schools are not coming within the Municipalities.
4. It is the further case of the applicant that in the qualifying examination, i.e., SSLC, she had secured 55.83%. Respondent had announced provisional list of candidates on 15.05.2003 wherein the name of the applicant did not find a place, even though name of a person who has secured less percentage than that of the applicant was included. Immediately, applicant submitted objection on 29.03.2003. The respondent issued an endorsement dated 6.10.2003 rejecting objection of the applicant on the ground that Sri Saraswathi Convent School was coming within the Municipality area. Being aggrieved by the same, applicant filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No.179/2004.
5. After service of notice, State had filed its reply statement. Along with the reply statement, they produced Annexure R4, report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.06.2004 stating that Sri Saraswathi Convent High School came under the rural area. On the basis of the reply submitted by the State, Tribunal allowed the application and directed the State Government to accommodate the applicant in the post of Women Supervisor without disturbing the selection of respondent Nos. 4 to 6, within a period of three months. Being aggrieved by the same, State preferred this writ petition.
6. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused materials on record.
7. Sri.I.Taranath Poojary, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is no dispute that Deputy Commissioner submitted a report dated 22.6.2004, which is produced as Annexure-R4 to the reply statement filed before the Tribunal stating that Sri Saraswathi Convent High School, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Kolar District came under the purview of rural area during the period when applicant studied from 7th to 10th standard in the said school. He further contended that only grievance of the State is with regard to the direction given by the Tribunal to accommodate the applicant for the post of Women Supervisor, without disturbing selection of respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein.
8. It is not in dispute that applicant had applied for the post of Women Supervisor under 3A Rural category. As per the report issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.6.2004 produced by the State along with the reply statement marked as Annexure R4, it is specifically stated that Sri.Saraswathi Convent High School came under the rural area when the applicant was studying in the School. The Tribunal, relying on the said report produced by the State, has rightly allowed the application and quashed the endorsement dated 06.10.2003. Since, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein are already working as Women Supervisors from 29.9.2003, the Tribunal is justified in giving a direction to the State Government to accommodate the applicant for the post Women Supervisor without disturbing selection of respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein.
9. In the circumstances, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DM/-