IOURT OF KARNATAKA HIS!-f COUETAOE: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-BGH COUR1
W._E.No,4{}{}80/QGOS
116 THE HIGH ooum' or «
cnzcurr amen Afr Gunnaazéjgs. -
DATED 'mm mm 0310» D4? qs{,FE°B.1§a:gRY
A .
THE HOWBLE ll!12';§I!..IT_S'£'1VCEV
BETWEEN: T V
S1nt.Shiv"uba1' @ Shdb.ha §5£id3.sa]a§ _
W/o Gaz1gacih_ai" " ._ »
Aged about 28 yetaig '
Rio HaDadag¢rin:i1"s511ag:%%
Basavanai Bagéwgdi 'F:5g1uk 'n '
Bijapur °
. .' ..PE'I'ITIONER
(By Sri S11da'rsh:»;:n.NI., Ada)
u '- '
.-"ANS _____
Commiitee fo:"L.$aEecfion of the
' Anga13L;a.wa;?;i'lVorkcrs
' Basavana Bagavadi Taiuk.
" " * Rép, by Chairman
4'2.' -.Dۤ%ut3I Director
'~'£%'ofi;en and Child. Dcvaiapemnt Degtaartment
' Bi1'a?ur-
Chiid Development Pnegamming Officcr,
Basavama Bagewacii Taiuk,
Bijapur Disuict.
'JP !\D'Il§I'P1If'Ii\P'I I'Il\7I1 \a\IIJl'I
VV'.P.No.40f}80/2008
4. Smt. Savitribai
W] o Sangangouda Patil
Aged about 29 years J _
R / 0 Halladagenaur Village ' '
Basavana Bagswadi Taluk
Bijapm" Bistrict.
(By Sri M.Kuma;', AGA for R243 V' _ _
Sri Shivananci V.Paita;nshcVtty; As:!v'L"Lf¢;>r R4)
This Wzit Petition...fi1t::i».u:z1d£:r ;!XIftiC1tiS"226 and 227 of
Constitution pf India; praying quash the impugned
appointxnent o1\}LcérV .iSS¥1:'€"T_C'1V th'e"~~*1'" respondent at
Annexure-F”dzi_t:d’V~13.O6._f;Q£)8V, in ‘favqur of 4th respondent.
This “far hearing in ‘B’
group; this aayA_. t1;e ‘ijolliff made £116 following:
” A. A “- :O«F{‘DER
In \§fI’i’i }:)i;?.¥,§§;i§}§1, the petitioner is challenging
fize’ .,of respondent 110% as Anganawadi
– -I-IWVFII ‘I-I-W.f1all¥l ‘HI!-‘ !\l”‘UlI|’l”I’ll”UI’ll’I ‘I”fC\’WK’l’ WHEY-“I \Ir’i’0IGI’Ufl’I9|I\’|’ VII?!’ MIWJUINI
workei;§”‘FhTé’ order dated 33.6.2008 is
g’i: _V I have heard the iearned counsei
far the parties. Lemmas! counsel for the
.._§}’-étiiisner $1.1¥:)mit$ that the petitianer has gbiainad
A.._§j}.§2% whiie respcndent 130.4 has obtained Qniy
\ 61.97% in S.S.L.{3 exaznination and therefore, the
E
231%
V. ;2.Ej;e3r5é>:§:b’E’i¥eTs ”
W.P.Ne.4{}{)8€!!2GI}8
appointment of respondent No.4 as
is bad in law. Learned Add}. Gevem.. e m’ C;t;’i.'{lV”‘:;’v;}”&'(:};€i’O(‘;iei5ltt’c?”.h;9-}.,S”
filed a memo dated 27.9.2008.’ ”
relevant portion of it reads f0>}1ov€’s:V__ ‘ — V
“I1 is true,» iia.e~s::t)red
61.92% in the C’. Respondent
No.4 » Smf.Savii}r_zfi secured
51.07%. fie Further the
res;2era.?fie_ni’:._;i;:g:’;’?.’ Hézesed Pre-{fniversiiu
Ceurse exagniizaiien sifiie is eligible to
be as E3!’ the
directfen ‘of 15¢’ % Hence, the tang;
marks sezfrjtgreel ‘E1; fespondent is 63.7%.
Hefuge, ‘$0.4 has been selected.
.Respor3efen’i”uISo belongs to the village of
‘ The Tahsiidzzr of Basavana
Yssued the Residence Certificate
o’m 13.,:z.,:2§:::;:e3t% which has been venfied by the 3rd
resperecient.”
funderfyfng supplied)
As ceuld be seen from the above meme,
“reep0I1de:1t no.4 has passed pre-university ceurse
examination and therefore, she was gven two aciditionai
Wy
…–….-. . Izvn uklwfif e..u,,Er* KAKNATAKA HIGH COLRT OF KAHQATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARN%KA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H¥GH CGUR
W.P.No.40{}8{)f2G{)8
marks resulting in 63.07% to her.
complaint of the petitioner that”resp0odefit Hltzss AV
mexétofious to her, cannot ;’ ~ ‘~’I’}’:;e’
contention is accordingly ‘ –
3. Howeveg;§”‘~~i’®r_%i5(}’vA for petitioner
submits that in fhe population of
SC/ST aigdl as the mtitioner
belonge she shouid have been
was not able to refer to any
such V .the Writ petition. Hence, the
“»::onte1}’f§.o_V1*i’CaI’i::1ot be Considered. I find no legal}
‘V iii; the appointment of respondent no.4 as
” génganafigcdfi worker.
.. ;}V3’et..iVt:Aiox} dismissed.
Se/—
IUDGE
_ __ ex}: