Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 49 (KAR)

PRAMEELA C K W/O MALLESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-01-05

ARAVIND KUMAR

body2017
ORDER : Heard. Perused the records. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is: “Whether a candidate appointed as a Anganawadi Karyakarthe/worker, on being elected to Taluk or Gram or Zilla Panchayat, can be allowed to continue in both the posts or otherwise?” 3. Facts in brief which has led to filing of these two writ petitions can be crystalised as under: Petitioners were appointed as Anganawadi Karyakarthe on 31.07.1995 and 13.02.2009 respectively. Both the petitioners contested the elections to Grama Panchayat of Chandagalu Grama and Chikkabeechanahalli Grama respectively. In the elections held to said Panchayats they were declared elected on 05.06.2015. Accordingly, they have been discharging their duties as elected members of the respective Grama Panchayats. In case of writ petitioner in W.P.No.42516/2016, 4th respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to elect either one of the post namely, either to choose to continue to work as Anganawadi Worker or to continue as a member of Grama Panchayat and as such, calling upon the petitioner to report the same to 4th respondent notice came to be issued. Thereafter, petitioner did not reply and as such notices came to be issued on 18.06.2015, 20.07.2015, 07.11.2015 and 30.11.2015. Insofar as petitioner in W.P.No.43313/2016, 4th respondent issued a show cause notice similar to the one issued to Smt.Pramila C.K. (in W.P.No.42516/2016). In both the cases reply came to be submitted on 02.12.2016 and 11.05.2016 contending interalia that petitioner is not holding any profitable job or occupying any employment coming under the State or Central Government and as such, demand made in the notices by 4th respondent was not complied by the petitioners. It is thereafter impugned order dated 09.06.2016, Annexure-A, in both the writ petitions came to be passed by 3rd respondent removing the petitioners from the post of Anganawadi Worker. It is this order, which has been called in question by the petitioners. 4. It is the contention of Sri.Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that there is no prohibition under any law for a Member of given Panchayat being Anganawadi worker and respondent authorities only after verifying that petitioners name are found in the electoral roll of their respective Grama Panchayat, had received or accepted the nomination papers of petitioners and were duly elected in the elections held. It is also contended that post of Anganawadi Worker is nonpermanent and non-substantive post appointed on honorary basis and amount paid to them was honorarium and it is not an office of profit. Hence, it is contended that petitioners not being disqualified under Section 167 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, from contesting any local bodies elections and they having not earned any such disqualification prescribed under the Act, petitioners could not have been removed from the post of Anganwadi worker by 3rd respondent under the impugned orders. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7603/2003 (LBELE) dated 18.03.2005 Annexure-H in both the petitions. 5. Per contra, Sri. E.S.Indiresh, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would support the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioners undisputedly came to be appointed as Anganawadi Workers, which is a centre established by the State for the purposes of rendering education to children from rural background and especially to the deprived classes and who come from poor economic stratum of the society. The purpose and intent behind establishing such centres was to ensure that education is delivered to the door step of villages. These Anganawadi Centres which are established at village level would also promote harmony amongst the villagers. Hence, selection of Anganawadi Workers is made by the State from amongst the residents of the same village which would be subject to certain conditions by giving preference to Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, widows, destitutes, victims of acid attack and the like. The job of Anganawadi Worker is not only imparting education to children of the village but also to ensure that there is all round development of a child. As such the job of Anganawadi Worker cannot be construed either as part time job or a job which would not require perennial attention of children. In fact, it is also the job of Anganawadi Worker to establish a personal contact with the parents of students / children to constantly enquire about the overall development of child. The nature and kind of service of Anganawadi worker would perform is a honors task and they would hardly have any spare time to attend to other activities. In fact, it is also the job of Anganawadi Worker to establish a personal contact with the parents of students / children to constantly enquire about the overall development of child. The nature and kind of service of Anganawadi worker would perform is a honors task and they would hardly have any spare time to attend to other activities. Anganawadi workers take care of Infants and small kids and therefore they cannot afford to divert their attention particularly for their demanding nature of positions such as Member of Gram/ Taluk Panchayats. It is with this laudable object Anganawadi Centres have been established across the State and with this object the Anganawadi Workers are appointed to look and manage after these Anganawadi Centres. In this background, it cannot be gainsaid by the petitioners to contend that job of an Anganawadi Worker is not either continuous or it would not require full time attention or to contend that said job is a part time job. 7. It is no doubt true that disqualification prescribed under Section 167 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, would not be attracted insofar as posts held by the petitioners. However, removal of petitioners by impugned orders is not on the basis of petitioners having earned such disqualification and it is also not in dispute that they have been the members of Grama Panchayat and have earned the disqualification prescribed under Section 167 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 for being removed from said post. On the other hand, impugned orders came to be passed by removing them from the post of Anganwadi workers after issuing notices and calling upon them to select either of two posts namely either to continue as a Member of Grama Panchayat or to continue as Anganawadi Worker in order to ensure that there is no deficiency in the work discharged by the Anganawadi Workers. As such, contention of Mr. Sharath S. Gowda learned counsel appearing for petitioners cannot be accepted and same stands rejected. 8. Insofar as judgment of Coordinate Bench rendered in W.P.No.7603/2005 (LBEle) (Annexures-J & H in W.P.Nos.42516/2016 & 43313/2016 respectively) is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that there cannot be any dispute with regard to proposition of law laid down thereunder. Sharath S. Gowda learned counsel appearing for petitioners cannot be accepted and same stands rejected. 8. Insofar as judgment of Coordinate Bench rendered in W.P.No.7603/2005 (LBEle) (Annexures-J & H in W.P.Nos.42516/2016 & 43313/2016 respectively) is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that there cannot be any dispute with regard to proposition of law laid down thereunder. In the said case nomination papers submitted by the petitioner therein came to be rejected on the ground that petitioner therein had been appointed as a Cook (part time job) under the Scheme of Government known and called as ----in other language-------.In this background, Coordinate Bench has held that petitioner had not earned any disqualification as prescribed under Section 167 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, so as to reject the nomination papers of the petitioners. In the abovesaid factual background this Court had held that rejection of nomination papers was improper. In the said case the issue regarding entitlement of Anganawadi Worker or any similarly placed worker, who is discharging full time charge also being entitled to be continued as Panchayat Member, was never in issue. As such, said judgment would not come to the rescue of petitioners and is clearly distinguishable on facts of the present case. 9. In that view of the matter, impugned orders passed by 3rd respondent cannot be found fault with. find no other good ground has been urged to entertain these writ petitions. Hence, writ petitions stand rejected. Ordered accordingly.