H LAKSHMAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was fourth respondent in the writ petition, has assailed the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 7805/2010 (S-RES) dated 10th February 2011. In the writ petition filed by fourth respondent herein, she had sought for quashing the order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the second respondent-Deputy Director, Women and Child Welfare Department, vide Annexure K to the writ petition, appointing the appellant to the post of Anganavadi Worker at Baraguru Centre-III. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the second respondent inasmuch as, the fourth respondent is more meritorious than the appellant i.e. the selected candidate and held that the authorities are not justified in ignoring the educational qualification of the fourth respondent while appointing the appellant herein and directed the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the fourth respondent in the place of the appellant as early as possible, not late than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the fourth respondent in the writ petition has presented this appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

(2.) Brief facts of the case in hand are that, pursuant to the Notification issued by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for appointment of Anganwadi Workers at Baraguru Centre-III, the appellant and fourth respondent herein filed their respective applications, seeking appointment as Anganwadi Workers. It is the case of the appellant that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe and has passed SSLC Examination with 37.66%. According to the circular dated 6th February 2008 issued by the second respondent, vide Annexure G to the writ petition, if a candidate has passed PUC examination, 02 bonus marks shall be added; if the candidate has secured degree, 03 bonus marks will have to be added; and if the candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, Physically handicapped, widow and neglected women, then 05 bonus marks will have to be added. Since the appellant belonged to Scheduled Tribe, 05 bonus marks were added to her SSLC percentage of 37.66%, which comes to 42.66%, whereas the fourth respondent is from General Merit category and she has secured 40.33% in SSLC examination and has passed PUC examination.. In addition to that, she has also completed Hindi Ratna Examination conducted by the Mysore Hindi Prachar Parishat, Bangalore, which is equivalent to B.A. degree. as per Annexure C to the writ petition in the year 1995 and therefore, 03 bonus marks will have to be added to the SSLC marks of 40.33%, which comes to 43.33%. Thus, it is the case of the fourth respondent that she has secured higher marks and therefore more meritorious than the appellant herein and entitled for being selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Baraguru Centre-III in place of the appellant herein.

(3.) Be that as it may, without considering the said aspect, the selection list was prepared by the third respondent and forwarded to the second respondent and the same was published in the Notice Board, showing the name of the appellant herein as being selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker to Baraguru Centre-III. Being highly aggrieved by the same, the fourth respondent immediately filed a detailed objections to the same before the second respondent against the appointment of the appellant herein, on the ground that she has secured more marks and better qualified than the fourth respondent for being selected and appointed as Anganwadi Worker. Her request was turned down and an order came to be passed, appointing the appellant herein as Anganwadi Worker in respect of Baraguru Centre-III. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, the fourth respondent herein filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7805/2010 and the said writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 10th February 2011 and the learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant material available on his file, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order appointing the appellant herein, holding that the fourth respondent is more meritorious than the appellant herein and the authorities are not justified in ignoring the educational qualification of the fourth respondent while appointing the appellant and directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appoint the fourth respondent in place of appellant as early as possible, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.