Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1376 (KAR)

Kavitha L. C. v. State of Karnataka

2022-10-17

S.G.PANDIT

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner an aspirant for the post of Anganwadi Worker is before this Court challenging the appointment of 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District, under order bearing No.Oo.Ni.Ha/ICD/Anka/Ma/2014-15 dtd. 19/5/2014 (Annexure-L) and for consequential reliefs. 2. Heard Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent under Annexure-C notification dtd. 5/7/2013 invited applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker in various Villages including that of Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner being eligible submitted her application to the post of Anganwadi Worker, Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre with all the relevant documents. Learned counsel would submit that on 3/9/2013 provisional select list was published and it indicated selection of one Smt. Saraswathi as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. It is submitted that there was no appointment in pursuance to notice dtd. 5/7/2013 to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre and without assigning any reason and without canceling the earlier notification dtd. 5/7/2013, it is submitted that fresh notification dtd. 25/9/2013 was issued inviting applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner had not applied in pursuance to the second notification. Pursuant to the second notification dtd. 25/9/2013, the 5th respondent was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker. The petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.17963/2014 seeking for a direction to consider her representation and to pass appropriate order as per earlier notification dtd. 5/7/2013. This Court by order dtd. 6/12/2019 disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents to pass orders furnishing necessary details and communicate the decision to the petitioner. As the respondents failed to comply with the said order, the petitioner filed CCC No.808/2021 wherein the respondents placed on record endorsement (Annexure- T) dtd. 21/1/2020 and stated that since the petitioner had failed to produce residential certificate her candidature was rejected. Challenging the said endorsement (Annexure-T) dtd. 21/1/2020 as well as seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in pursuance to the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel contends that non-assigning any reason for abandoning the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013 and the action of the respondents in issuing second notification dtd. 5/7/2013, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel contends that non-assigning any reason for abandoning the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013 and the action of the respondents in issuing second notification dtd. 25/9/2013 to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel would submit that in pursuance to the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013, the petitioner was the more merited candidate and she ought to have been selected as Anganwadi Worker, but no reasons are assigned to abandon the process and to issue fresh notification dtd. 25/9/2013 to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. Since the petitioner was more meritorious candidate in pursuance to the notification dtd. 5/7/2013, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. 5. Admittedly the petitioner was applicant to the post of Anganwadi Worker of Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre in pursuance to the notification (Annexure-C) dtd. 5/7/2013. For the reasons assigned in the endorsement (Annexure-T) dtd. 21/1/2020 the Selection Committee took decision to initiate fresh recruitment process and issued notification dtd. 25/9/2013 inviting fresh applications to fill the post of Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre. The endorsement would disclose that the respondents had published provisional select list on 3/9/2013 and one Smt. Kavitha had filed objections. Considering the said objections, the Selection Committee took decision to initiate fresh recruitment process. In pursuance to the second notification dtd. 25/9/2013, the petitioner failed to submit her application and in the said selection process, the 5th respondent is selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker to Gondi Mallenahalli Anganwadi Centre on 19/5/2014. The 5th respondent is working as Anganwadi Worker at Gondi Mallenahalli Village for more than eight years. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved by issuance of second notification i.e., 25/9/2013 without assigning any reasons, it was open for the petitioner to challenge the second notification dtd. 25/9/2013 in the Writ Petition No.17963/2014. The petitioner had prayed only for consideration of her representation and the petitioner had not challenged the fresh notification dtd. 25/9/2013, issued calling fresh applications. Further, the petitioner failed to participate in the selection process in pursuance to the second notification dtd. 25/9/2013. 25/9/2013 in the Writ Petition No.17963/2014. The petitioner had prayed only for consideration of her representation and the petitioner had not challenged the fresh notification dtd. 25/9/2013, issued calling fresh applications. Further, the petitioner failed to participate in the selection process in pursuance to the second notification dtd. 25/9/2013. It is not open at this stage for the petitioner to seek appointment based on the first notification dtd. 5/7/2013, since appointment in pursuance to second notification has already taken place and appointed candidate is working for more than eight years. 6. Hence for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition stands rejected.