RIZVAN BEGUM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has questioned the order at Annexure- 'F' dated 16.11.2013 passed by respondent No.3 appointing respondent No.6 as Anganwadi Worker to Hattigudur village, Shahapur Taluk, Yadgir District. Pursuant to notification issued by respondent No.5 dated 06.08.2012 vide Annexure-'A', the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 applied to get the appointment as Anganwadi Worker in Hattigudur Anganwadi Centre, Shahapur Taluk. After considering all the applications, petitioner was selected and appointed as per the order Annexure-'B' dated 15.12.2012. Thereafter she started working as Anganwadi Worker in Hattigudur Anganwadi Centre. Despite the same and suppressing the said fact, respondent No.6 approached this Court by filing W.P.No.87184/2012 (S-RES) praying for a direction to respondents to consider her application for appointment. In the said writ petition it was pleaded by respondent No.6 that the application of respondent No.6 is still pending consideration. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 18.07.2013 as per Annexure-'D' directing respondent No.5 to consider the application filed by respondent No.6 in accordance with law. Unfortunately, the said order dated 18.07.2013 is misread by the officials and reconsidered the entire issue once again.

(2.) The selection committee consisting of respondents 2 to 5 once again met on 29.10.2013 to consider the effect of the order of this Court in W.P.No.87184/2012. The selection committee instead of considering the application of respondent No.6 and rejecting the same in view of the appointment already made in favour of the petitioner, erroneously proceeded to transfer the petitioner to another Anganwadi Centre i.e. Naganatgi Anganwadi Centre and to appoint respondent No.6 to Hattigudur Anganwadi Centre though respondent No.6 was not eligible to be appointed. Consequently, Annexure-'F' dated 16.11.2013 came to be issued appointing respondent No.6 and Annexure-'G' dated 16.11.2013 was passed transferring the petitioner from Hattigudur Anganwadi Centre to Naganatgi Anganwadi Centre. The order appointing respondent No.6 as Anganwadi Worker to Hattigudur Anganwadi Centre is called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) This is a clear case in which respondent No.6 has misrepresented all through. The notification inviting applications to the post of Anganwadi worker clearly mandates that the candidates should possess SSLC as a minimum qualification. It also mandates that the candidates should be physically handicapped. Clause- 20 of the notification further makes it clear that the candidates having more than 60% disability are not permitted to apply.