IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO.237/2016 & REVIEW PETITION NO.469/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NOs.35455-35456/2014(S-RES) BETWEEN 1. SMT USHA W/O SRI DINESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O MARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE WARD 2, KALIHAL POST HOLEHONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577227 2. SMT REKHA BAI D/O SRI SUSHELA BAI R/O MARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE WARD 2, KALIHAL POST HOLEHONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577227 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R PATEL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN DEVELOPMENT UTILITY BUILDING BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT -577201.
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH SHIVAMOGGA- 577201.
4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SHIVAMOGGA -577201 5. TALUK HEALTH OFFICER BHADRAVATHI -577301 6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH BHADRAVATHI BHADRAVATHI- 577301 7. TALUK WELFARE OFFICER BHADRAVATHI -577301 8. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OFFICER BEHIND AGRICULTURAL OFFICER TARIKERE ROAD BHADRAVATHI -577301 9. KUM VANITHA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA R/O MARASHETTYHALLI VILLAGE WARD I, KALIHAL POST HOLEHONNUR HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT -577227 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R8 R9 SERVED) THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:08/09/2014 PASSED IN WP NO.35455- 35456/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
These review petitions are filed on 21.04.2016 seeking review of the order dated 08.09.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.35455-35456/2014.
2. There is enormous delay in filing the review petitions.
The review petitioners seek to review the order on the ground that the petitioner has found material to substantiate that respondent No.9 was a Graduate as on 01.02.2014 and she was not eligible for being appointed as Anganavadi worker.
3. The basis for the petitioners contention that respondent No.9 was not eligible for being considered to the post of Anganavadi worker is the qualification prescribed in the Government Order dated 15.06.2012, wherein it has been prescribed that an Anganavadi worker should possess a minimum qualification of having passed in SSLC. The petitioners would seek to read the said provision to mean that a person who has acquired better qualification than 10th Standard pass would not be eligible for the post of Anganavadi worker.
4. In the opinion of this Court, that kind of an interpretation of the provision, is unreasonable and unacceptable. The instructions would only prescribe a minimum qualification and does not prescribe the maximum qualification for a person to be eligible for the post of Anganavadi worker.
5. In that light of the matter, even if the petitioners have found material that respondent No.9 is a Graduate as on the date of appointment, it will not be a disqualification, in the opinion of this Court.
6. Therefore, the review petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.
7. In view of the dismissal of the petitions, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE JT/-