UMADEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appointment of the 6th respondent as Anganawadi worker of Ward No. 17 (Athani Galli) of Sindagi taluk is called in question in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, she is resident of Ward No. 17, whereas Respondent No. 6 is resident of Ward No. 15. Thus the petitioner contends that the appointment of Respondent No. 6 as Anganawadi worker is bad in the eye of law.

(2.) TO verify the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, notices were issued to the respondents. The Tahsildar of Sindagi has filed an affidavit dated 23.1.2014 to the effect that Respondent No. 6 is not the resident of Ward No. 17, but she is resident of Ward No. 15. He has further stated in the affidavit that Respondent No. 6 is residing with her father viz., Yellappa Jabanavar at Ward No. 15. He has also stated that even after the marriage, the 6th respondent - Manjula is residing in Ward No. 15. However, the then Child Development Project Officer - K.K. Chavan has sworn to an affidavit on 21.3.2009 to the effect that Respondent No. 6 is a resident of Ward No. 17 of Sindagi taluk. Since there were conflicting views on facts, explanation was sought for. One more affidavit is filed by the present Child Development Project Officer, Sindagi viz., Gurushantappa s/o Sharanappa Gunari to the effect that he visited Ward No. 17 of Sindagi taluk alongwith the Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council, Sindagi and found that the 6th respondent is not the resident of Ward No. 17 of Sindagi. The affidavit of Gangandhar, in -charge Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council, Sindagi dated 12.2.2014 also is to the same effect.