High Court Karnataka High Court

N Suvarnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
N Suvarnamma vs State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT <31? KARNATAKA AT BAN(a--:{i.Jt)i?.'§:   _

DATES "ms THE 17TH my GP _I_\EQ3£EMI3E'R*' ififléf  _ Q "  

BEFORE

THE HQNBLE MR.JUSTICE'§fAM M{§HAN   3

WRIT PETYFION ..,n;o. 1439:aj'g§Gs((s--¥éEs:% 

 

BETWEEN:     ~  '

 W10... K. Manjixnath,
Age: 26  Guflmitiwuga-Hosur,
Jagalur '1'a1t1'k:',= .Davaa.a"gem' Distrfxst,

" .V " %     ...PE'I'I'I'IONER
(By Sri Mahkzsh R. iippifl; Aiivcxzatc)

'  * ._1...VT31::.S'£.'.ate of Karnataka,
V T. * ¢. 'R.§:p163_ci..-xted by its Secretary,
Vflrépaitmcnt of Women and
VCh.ii~f;i ' Devahapment,
 Building, Bangakzre -- 560 001.

V' *  Assistantihmc' tor,

Department of Women and
Ghiki Development,
I)ava11.agu11.~:.

3. The Child Development Pmject Oficcr,
Jagalur, Bavanagere District.

bi



4. Smt H. Yellamma,
D/0. Hanumanthappa,
Age: Major, R/<3. Hosur,
Gvufliidurgu, Jugalul' Taluk,
Fmvanagere 'District.

(Sri '1'. P. Srinivas, HCGP for R-1 to R--3;
R~4 served 85 unrepresented;   

   

This Writ Petition is flied:   
of the Constitution of India _pIa}}ez':_ ts  the drdcr  '

dated 15.07.2008, passd by the tjespdndezit,  as
A1mex'ure~--D in so far a$*~t1_1e the ¢I'fi* Areé.ponde13t.
is concerned, by issfiinfi V-._j"1'it"o;fi  Cextioraxig to
grant stay of thg. gpexg-4aoni;:;f '-aegdaied 15.07.2003

passe<3*. by_  "marked as Annexure--D in so
far as the sz=:1ectiefi  respondent, is concerned, and
direct fl1eV reS;xo3::£ie11't_s"  issue appointment order to the

petifjpixex as V"A..1:1}gan2es'adi worker in respect sf Hosur

_ % 'A {G¥it&idé1;géé}~.Angafi§§édi Center, Jagalur Taluk, Davanageze
 __ iiiehiefvige ingemst of justice.

rv;is¢.%$3:§T1o793;2oo9 in Writ Pefition No.14895/O8 is

 filed by";.fl1e petitioner praying that this Horzfble court he
..  to stay the operation of Nortificafion dated:
22; 10.2009, for the rwsons stated therein.

This Writ Petition along with Mis<:.W.10'?93/O9 coming
on for orders this day, the Cmzrt made the fcsllawingt

H



ORDER

The petitioner claiming to belong to

responded to an invitation of the State to fin–u;;f§ne

of Anganawadi Workers, whe1re;founflV eviégaibile, V’

in SSLC, the c;ua11fym’ ‘ g examm Vafionbav,’«;1{i–$_jéi'[die£111anfi, ‘7 ._

fill-up the ‘vacancy at Hoeu_wf G1;t11i(iutga.VVA(at Nija. 16} ” V

Annexure–B. There–a~fieIwo;’ci*:”s,:.. -. _ fiwas. not
permitted to report to urga. It appears

that some of _as}:j1ran”W of Anganawadi

Wcxrkeis c-«i:xa Eiev and a learned single
judge of the process cf selection and

apgzéfiiitraent Warkers in the State of

vitiated and aecoxfiingly set aside the entire

of all the workers. Though, the

pefitiorgefs was not directly in question in that

frefifiofl; : the State Gavemment aggrieved by the order

‘ ijttférred a, writ appeal and obtained a stay of the onier of

‘V single judge. Thus, the order seiecting and

appointing the petitiuner as the Anganawfli Workeri for

Hosur-Guthidurga was restored, entitling the .

the: appoinhnent. Htxwever, the Stat¢Mappear3″t:)” –1fl1:avé”iss:11ecf” ” u

a fresh notification inviting appiicafionfs Tféir

the post of Anganawadi Wérkgrs 2 1

which was opposed ‘by 1 3
rtyresentation dated d€’§1V3 i?-‘I3 Which.
the State went ahead VA’;¥£f§j..’–V}2cspondent for
appointment” V 15.07.2008

Annvszxure ‘ff:

This détcd 02. I’?..fl8 granted stay

of order 4A1mcxure~D appoiming the 4’31

_ mspifiident Worker. During the pendcncy of

.A p::tsii:jQ:3., ih¢ Stair: Gavcmment yet again issued another

r¢5é:5:;{::;ti:és;;§___ 22.10.2009 Ann:-.xum–E to the

Mi§¢.w%;%’:o?§3/2099 inviting applicatiens for the post of

V. Axiganévéédi Worker at Gutthidurga. Hence, the application

‘ ‘”fVbi’ Stay of further proceedings pursuant to the notificaiion

s5£.\

3. Having regard to: the undisputed ,,

noticed supra, the State Government could not isslaféti V’

fmsh xxotjfication and $e1cct the -«:3? 1*ea1g;o§1dc,:j{t :~*3;if}1csi2t

a;nIm11m’ g the pefitioncfis seiection to”

post of Anganawadi Worker at
no fresh notification issued
inviting applications f4:)a21′”VA the 1308i Of
Anganawadi w¢;1:§;w;~at the selection
and ap13oint:iic%1.t. the notificatirm

A11nexuri:¥E -and? unreasonabic.

4». “A1ihoug1_i,’ Aifhfipfiifitifiner has not sought to amend

the ;j.1′:a§n:r fhfiwrit Petifion to quash Am:1cxure–E,

‘V “n¢{¥€r~ti:§t~Ié’9s. in facts and cimumstanccs. there is a

the relief to quash Annexure- E.

hi the ztsult, the Writ: petition is allowed. The

Gidgjr Qfitcd 15.07.’.Z%8 A1mexum–D in so far as it relates to

‘gkilegittion 0f 4% respondent as Anganawaxii Worker at Hosusn

V’ ‘Guthidurga and the subsequent Notification damd

?

cf

22.10.2009 Annexuxvc-E are quashed. The *

and 3 are directed to forthwith pern;;i£..fl_:_1¢2 u V’ »

to duty as Anganawadi Worker at Ht)s11i::f%G«”iL1th’TT1′;i_’u1-jggz, :1′ ‘