Smt Reshma W/O Imamsab Kichadi v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2025:KHC-D:15401-DB( WA(No.(100540(of(2022( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA,(AT(DHARWAD( TH DATED(THIS(THE(11 (DAY(OF(NOVEMBER,(2025( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(G(PANDIT( (AND(( (THE(HON'BLE(MRS(JUSTICE(GEETHA(K.B.(

WRIT,APPEAL,NO.100540,OF,2022,(S-RES),

BETWEEN:((

SMT.,RESHMA,W/O,IMAMSAB,KICHADI, AGE.,32,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEHOLD,WORK,, R/O,GONAGAUR,TOTA,,POST.,GONAGAUR,,

TQ.,RAMDURGA,,DIST.,BELAGAVI., …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI.,S.B.,DODDAGOUDAR,,ADVOCATE), , AND:(

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,,

BY,ITS,SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT,OF,, WOMAN,AND,CHILD,DEVELOPMENT,, M.S.,BUILDING,,BENGALURU., ,

2., THE,DEPUTY,DIRECTOR,, WOMAN,AND,CHILD,DEVELOPMENT,, WELFARE,DEPARTMENT,,BELAGAVI.,

,

3., THE,SECRETARY,, Digitallytisignedtiby BHARATHI0H0M Location:0HIGH CHILD,DEVELOPMENT,PROJECT,OFFICER,, COURT0OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD ANGANAWADI,WORKERS,SELECTION,COMMITTEE,, BENCH Date:02025.11.15 13:03:180+0530 RAMDURG,,TQ.,RAMDURGA,,DIST.,BELAGAVI., ,

4., HASINA,AKRAMSAB,SAYAD, AGE.,23,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEHOLD,WORK,, R/O,GONAGNUR,,TQ.,RAMDURG,,DIST.,BELAGAVI., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SHARAD,V.,MAGADUM,,AGA), , , THIS, WRIT, APPEAL, IS, FILED, UNDER, SEC.4, OF, KARNATAKA, HIGH, COURT, ACT,, 1961,, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 6/09/2022, IN, WP, NO.107731/2016, (S-RES),, AND, ALLOW,THE,WRIT,APPEAL,BY,SETTING,ASIDE,THE,SELECTION,LIST,OF, ndRESPONDENT,NO.4,DATED,18-02-2012,PASSED,BY,2 ,RESPONDENT,

UNDER NO.U.NI.BE/M.M.A.E/AUM. KAA.KA/GOU.SE.GU/11-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ORDER DATED 28-07-2016 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER NO. U.NI.BE/M.M.A.E/AUM.KAA.KA/SELECTION/16-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 24-9-2011 AND 5-12-2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND G & ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

This Writ Appeal by the petitioner is directed against order dated 6.9.2022 passed in WP No.107731/2016, whereunder her request to quash the appointment of respondent No.4 as Anganawadi Worker is rejected.

¶2Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.B. Doddagoudar for the appellant and perused the entire writ appeal papers.

¶3It is stated that respondent No.3 invited applications to fill-up the posts of Anganwadi Workers in various Anganwadi Centers at Ramdurg Taluk by notice dated

24.07.2010. One of the centers was, Gonaganur Thota Anganwadi Centre, which comes under Killa-Toragal Gram

Panchayat in Ramdurg Taluk. The petitioner and respondent No.4 filed an application for the post of Anganwadi Worker. Respondent No.4 was selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker to Gonaganur Thota Anganwadi Centre. Questioning the said order dated 18.02.2012, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶4Learned Single Judge on hearing the parties to the proceedings, under the impugned order, held that in the merit list respondent No.4 stood second and the petitioner stood third. Further, it is observed that respondent No.4 had applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker in terms of Annexure-R1 notice and thus rejected the petitioner's contention that respondent No.4 had not filed application.

¶5On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate, who has taken notice for respondents, we are of the considered view that no ground is made out to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order. Learned Single Judge's order is dated

06.09.2022, whereas, the present appeal was filed before the

Court on 22.09.2022. However, the office objections are complied after more than three years. It shows the interest of appellant in prosecuting the appeal. Be that as it may.

¶6The appellant has not placed on record any material to establish that she is more meritorious than respondent No.4. Further, the contention that respondent No.4 had not filed application itself is rejected by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, Annexure-C produced by the petitioner herself indicates that respondent No.4 had made an application for appointment of Anganwadi Worker to Gonaganur Thota.

¶7Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Hence, the writ appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR/Sh, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4