H. LAKSHMAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, OFFICER AND MEMBER SECRETARY AND SMT. M

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.) THE submission of the learned counsel appearing for appellant is that the respondents 2 and 3, after due consideration of the procedure and guidelines issued by the Government from time to time, have selected and appointed the appellant as Anganwadi Worker to Barguru Centre -III, on the basis of merit and she has reported to duty and has been discharging her duties as Anganwadi Worker as on date at Baraguru Centre -III. Now, without any justification, taking into consideration that the fourth respondent has secured more marks than the appellant, her appointment has been cancelled on the basis of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, which is not sustainable and is liable to be vitiated at the threshold. To substantiate the said submission, he submitted that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and passed SSLC with 37.33% whereas the fourth respondent belongs to General merit category and she has completed PUC examination and entitled to only 02 bonus marks. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge, after quashing the order passed by the second respondent, ought to have remanded the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as the fourth respondent to enable them to substantiate their respective case, instead of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the fourth respondent as Anganwadi Worker in place of the appellant herein. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside the threshold.