Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 714 (KAR)

M. H. GEETHA v. MANJULAMMA

2006-09-01

CYRIAC JOSEPH, K.RAMANNA

body2006
CYRIAC JOSEPH, CJ. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the 5th respondent in Writ Petition No. 13539/2005 which was allowed by the learned single Judge. The 1st respondent is the petitioner in the writ petition. ( 2 ) AS per Annexure-E-Notification dated 16-2-2004, the 5th respondent-Child Development Officer. Holalkere invited applications for the vacant post of Anganawadi workers. As per the notification, the candidate must be a woman belonging to the same village and should be within the age limit of 18 to 44 years. The educational qualification mentioned in the notification is SSLC pass and above. There were five applicants for the post of Anganawadi workers in Hiriyur village. The appellant and the 1st respondent were among the five applicants. Even though the appellant had not passed SSLC, she was selected by the Selection Committee on the ground that she was a widow. On the basis of such selection, she was appointed as anganawadi worker as per Annexure-G-Order dated 27-1 -2005. The 1 st respondent who possessed the required qualification and who was overlooked for appointment filed Writ petition No. 13539/2005 praying to quash annexure-G-Order and also to direct the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for the post of Anganawadi worker. The respondents contested the case by filing statement of objections. After considering the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents, the writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge quashing Annexure-G-order and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as an anganawadi worker. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the 5th respondent in the writ petition has filed this writ appeal. ( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order quashing Annexure-G-order. It is not disputed that as per Annexure-E-notification. the qualification required is SSLC pass and above. It is also not disputed that the appellant had failed in SSLC and therefore, she was not eligible to apply for the post in terms of the conditions mentioned in Anexure-E-notification. Annexure-E-notification had not given any discretion to the Selection Committee to relax the educational qualification on any ground. Hence the action of the Selection committee in selecting an ineligible applicant on the ground that she is a widow was wrong, illegal and arbitrary. Annexure-E-notification had not given any discretion to the Selection Committee to relax the educational qualification on any ground. Hence the action of the Selection committee in selecting an ineligible applicant on the ground that she is a widow was wrong, illegal and arbitrary. The Selection Committee or the appellant has no case that any suitable candidate was not available. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was right and justified in quashing annexure-G-order appointing the 5th respondent in the writ petition (appellant herein)as the Anganawadi worker pursuant to Annexure-E-notification. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant invited our attention to Annexure-Rl-Circular dated 31-7-1993 issued by the Government of Karnataka. It is pointed out that as per the said Circular dated 31-7-1993, the required educational qualification for the post of anganawadi worker is that the candidate "should at least have passed Standard 8". However, if a candidate who has passed Standard 18 is not available, educated or even semi-literate and illiterate but an intelligent and committed woman from the same village may be appointed as Anganawadi worker. Learned counsel contended that the condition in Annexure-E that the candidate should have passed SSLC is contrary to the qualification prescribed in the Government of India guidelines in Annexure-Rl-Circular dated 31-7-1993. We are not inclined to accept this contention. It is seen from Annexure Rl-Circular dialed 31-7-1993 that as per the Government of India guidelines the candidate should at least have passed Standard 8. When the qualification contained in the Government guidelines is "at least a pass in Standard 8", the respondents are not precluded from fixing a higher qualification like SSLC pass. The impugned selection was made pursuant to annexure-E-notification and therefore, the selection has to be made only on the basis of the conditions mentioned in Annexure-E-notification. If the appellant was aggrieved by the qualification mentioned in Annexure-E, she could have challenged it at the appropriate time. Knowing fully well that she is not eligible and qualified for the post in terms of anrexure-E-notification. the appellant applied. But the Selection Committee ought to have treated the appellant as ineligible and unqualified and the appellant should not have been appointed especially when qualified and eligible applicants were available. Knowing fully well that she is not eligible and qualified for the post in terms of anrexure-E-notification. the appellant applied. But the Selection Committee ought to have treated the appellant as ineligible and unqualified and the appellant should not have been appointed especially when qualified and eligible applicants were available. Even assuming that the qualification mentioned in anrrexure-E-notification is higher than the qualification mentioned in Annexure-Rl-Circular and that the appellant possessed the qualification mentioned in Annexure-Rl-Circular, this Court cannot uphold the appointment of the appellant. If Annexure-E is bad for the reason that the qualification mentioned therein is different from the qualification mentioned in Annexure-Rl-Circular, the entire selection is bad and the Court can only direct the respondents to issue fresh notification in accordance with Annexure-Rl-Government circular and make fresh selection. Under no circumstances the Court can put a seal of approval on the selection and appointment of the appellant which was contrary to the terms and conditions of Annexure-E-notification. if the qualification mentioned in Annexure-E-notification is different from the qualification mentioned in Annexure-Rl-notification and if candidates like the appellant possessing the qualification mentioned in Annexure-Rl are to be considered for appointment, an opportunity has to be given to all such prospective applicants to participate in the selection. If the petitioner alone is considered on the ground that she is a widow despite being unqualified, the selection will be arbitrary and illegal as candidates like her did not get an opportunity to apply for the post. Such favoured treatment cannot be meted out to the appellant. If at ill the 5th respondent wants to consider persons who possess lower qualification than the qualification mentioned in Annexure-E, the 5th respondent has to give opportunity to all such candidates to apply. In this view of the matter, we hold that the selection and appointment of the appellant was arbitrary and illegal. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, we make it clear that the quashing of the appointment of the appellant does not necessarily mean that the writ petitioner is entitled to be appointed. Consequent on the quashing of Annexure-G-order, dated 27-1-2005, the 5th respondent will have to make appointment to the post either on the basis of the ranks obtained by the candidates who participated in the previous selection after excluding the appellant or on the basis of a fresh assessment of the eligible candidates by the selection committee. Consequent on the quashing of Annexure-G-order, dated 27-1-2005, the 5th respondent will have to make appointment to the post either on the basis of the ranks obtained by the candidates who participated in the previous selection after excluding the appellant or on the basis of a fresh assessment of the eligible candidates by the selection committee. ( 6 ) HENCE the writ appeal is dismissed. .