Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1348 (KAR)

H. Lakshrnamrna v. State of Karnataka

2013-11-28

N.K.PATIL, R.B.BUDIHAL

body2013
Judgment : N.K. Patil, J. 1. The appellant, who was fourth respondent in the writ petition, has assailed the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.7805/2010 (S-RES) dated 10th February 2011. 2. In the writ petition filed by fourth respondent herein, she had sought for quashing the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the second respondent - Deputy Director, Women and Child Welfare Department, vide Annexure K to the writ petition, appointing the appellant to the post of Anganavadi Worker at Baraguru Centre-iii. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the second respondent inasmuch as, the fourth respondent is more meritorious than the appellant i.e. the selected candidate and held that the authorities are not justified in ignoring the educational qualification of the fourth respondent while appointing the appellant herein and directed the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the fourth respondent in the place of the appellant as early as possible, not late than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the fourth respondent in the writ petition has presented this appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 3. Brief facts of the case in hand are chat, pursuant to the Notification issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for appointment of Anganwadi Workers at Baraguru Centre-iii, the appellant and fourth respondent herein filed their respective applications, seeking appointment as Anganwadi Workers. It is the case of the appellant that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe and has passed SSLC Examination with 37.66%. According to the circular dated 6th February 2008 issued by the second respondent, vide Annexure G to the writ petition, if a candidate has passed PUC examination, 02 bonus marks shall be added; if the candidaxe has secured degree, 03 bonus marks will have to be added; and if the candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe, Physically handicapped, widow and neglected women, then 05 bonus marks will have to be added. Since the appellant belonged to Scheduled Tribe, 05 bonus marks were added to her SSLC percentage of 37,66%, which comes to 42.66%, whereas the fourth respondent is from General Merit category and she has secured 40.33% in SSLC examination and has passed PUC examination. Since the appellant belonged to Scheduled Tribe, 05 bonus marks were added to her SSLC percentage of 37,66%, which comes to 42.66%, whereas the fourth respondent is from General Merit category and she has secured 40.33% in SSLC examination and has passed PUC examination. In addition to that, she has also completed Hindi Rata a Examination conducted by the Mysore Hindi Prachar Parishat, Bangalore, which is equivalent to B.A. degree, as per Annexure C to the writ petition in the year 1995 and therefore, 03 bonus marks will have to be added to the SSLC marks of 40.33%, which comes to 43.33%. Thus, it is the case of the fourth respondent that she has secured higher marks and therefore more meritorious than the appellant iierein and entitled for being selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Baraguru Centre-iii in place of the appellant herein. 4. Be that as it may, without considering the said aspect, the selection list was prepared by the third respondent and forwarded to the second respondent and the same was published in the Notice Board, showing the name of the appellant herein as being selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker to Baraguru Centre-iii. Being highly aggrieved by the same, the fourtn respondent immediately filed a detailed objections to the same before the second respondent against the appointment of the appellant herein, on the ground that she has secured more marks and better qualified than the fourth respondent for being selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker. Her request was turned down and an order came to be passed, appointing the appellant herein as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Baraguru Centre-iii. Her request was turned down and an order came to be passed, appointing the appellant herein as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Baraguru Centre-iii. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, the fourth respondent herein filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7805/2010 and the said writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 10th February 2011 and the learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant material available on his file, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order appointing the appellant herein, holding that the fourth respondent is more meritorious than the appellant herein and the authorities are not justified in ignoring the educational qualification of the fourth respondent while appointing the appellant and directing the respondent Ncs.2 and 3 to appoint the fourth respondent in place of appellant as early as possible, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant is that the respondents 2 and 3, after due consideration of the procedure and guidelines issued by the Government from time to time, have selected and appointed the appellant as Anganwadi Worker to Barguru Centre-iii, on the basis of merit and she has reported to duty and has been discharging her duties as Anganwadi Worker as on date at Baraguru Centre-iii. Now, without any justification, taking into consideration that the fourth respondent has secured more marks than the appellant, her appointment has been cancelled on the basis of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, which is not sustainable and is liable to be vitiated at the threshold. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and passed SSLC with 37.33% whereas the fourth respondent belongs to General merit category and she has completed PUC examination and entitled to only 02 bonus marks. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and passed SSLC with 37.33% whereas the fourth respondent belongs to General merit category and she has completed PUC examination and entitled to only 02 bonus marks. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge, after quashing the order passed by the second respondent, ought to have remanded the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as the fourth respondent to enable them to substantiate their respective case, instead of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the fourth respondent ?s Anganwadi Worker in place of the appellant herein. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside at the threshold. 6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for fourth respondent inter alia contended and substantiated stating that, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is after due consideration of the entire material available on file and the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order passed by second respondent, appointing the appellant and directed the respondents to appoint the fourth respondent as Anganwadi Worker in place of the appellant herein. Hence, interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is uncalled for. 7. In reply to the said submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for fourth respondent, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 inter alia contended and substantiated the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, but, fairly submitted that, the learned Single Judge, in fact, after quashing the order passed by second respondent, ought to have remanded the matter to the second respondent with a direction to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both parties. To substantiate the same, he pointed out and submitted that, the fourth respondent has filed a detailed objections and without considering the said objections in a proper perspective, the second respondent has passed the order, without affording opportunity of hearing to the fourth respondent, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, he submitted that appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law. 8. Therefore, he submitted that appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law. 8. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appe Without considering the merit of the fourth respondent, the appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Worker to Baraguru Centre-iii and immediately after coming to know of the same from the Notice Board, the fourth respondent has filed her detailed objections before the second respondent. The second respondent, in turn, without considering the same in proper perspective and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the fourth respondent, has proceeded to select and appoint the appellant herein, in gross violation of the principles of natur al justice. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into or considered by the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order. 9. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, it would suffice for this Court, if an appropriate direction is issued to second respondent, to pass appropriate orders, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the appellant and fourth respondent, to meet the ends of justice. 10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed; The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.7805/2010 (S-RES) dated 10th February 2011 and the order dated 26th February 2010 bearing Nc.U.Nitu:ICD:Amkagu/2009-10/2598 passed by the second respondent are hereby set aside; The matter stands remitted back to the second respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and decide the matter in accordance with law and in strict compliance of the relevant circular/guidelines issued by Government as on the date of the Notification issued by the second respondent for appointment of Anganwadi Workers for Baraguru Centre-iii, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and fourth respondent, in compliance of the principles of natural justice and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; Pursuant to remand of the matter to the second respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, it is made clear that, the appellant/fourth respondent, whoever is working as Anganwadi Worker at Baraguru Centre-iii as on today, shall be continued till a final decision is taken by the second respondent. Further, in view of allowing I.A.2/2011 seeking permission to raise additional grounds, liberty is reserved to the learned counsel appearing for appellant as well as fourth respondent to file necessary application for adducing additional oral and documentary evidence including raising additional grounds to substantiate their respective stand, as on the date of issuance of Notification by the third respondent for appointment of Anganwadi Workers for Baraguru Centre-iii, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; In case such application is filed before the second respondent by the appellant/fourth respondent, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate order and proceed further in compliance of the directions issued above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.