SUMITRA CHANDRAM BEMUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. S.S. Mamadapur, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. A. Syed Habeeb, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Notice is not issued to respondent No. 5. Petitioner has called in question selection of respondent No. 5 as Anganawadi Worker to Koluragi Anganawadi Centre. Perused the case papers.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 has invited applications from eligible candidates by Notification dated 24.08.2015 for filling up of 13 posts of Anganawadi Workers. Respondent No. 5 was selected as Anganawadi Worker to Koluragi Centre by selection list dated 31.12.2015 Annexure-N and same has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri. S. S. Mamadapur, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that condition No. 4 of Notification at Annexure-A mandates that when a physically disabled person applies to the post of Anganawadi Worker, then without considering any other application, application of disabled person alone should be considered. He would submit that since petitioner as per Medical Certificates at Annexures-C to H, I, K, Rs.and M being declared as a physically disabled person she was entitled to be selected and appointed by the respondents authorities without considering the applications of other applicants and selection of respondent No. 5 is contrary to condition stipulated in Annexure-A and hence, he seeks for quashing of the appointment of respondent No. 5.