WP No.25075/2012

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI

WRIT PETITION NO.25075 OF 2012 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. B RATHANAMMA W/O N NARASHIMA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS DODDACHELLUR VILLAGE & POST TALUK ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.H.V.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR M/s. MANJU ASSTS., ADVS.)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE SECRETARY DEPT. OF WORKMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPT. OF WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501

3. PROJECT OFFICER DEPT. OF WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA – 577 501

4. SMT. S N KAMALA W/O KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS WP No.25075/2012

2

DODDACHELLUR VILLAGE & POST CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 501 ...RESPONDENTS

(SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATRI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) ---

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of praying to call for records and set aside the judgment and order dated 14.1.11 passed by this Court in WP 21082/10 to confirm the order dated 24.2.10 vide Annx-F passed by the R2 by allowing this appeal and etc.

This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner has called in question Annexure-A – an order appointing respondent No.4 as an Anganawadi worker.

3. Earlier, the petitioner was selected by the respondent

– authority as an Anganawadi worker by order dated

24.2.2010. The same was called in question by the respondent No.4 before this Court in WP No.21082/2010.

The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 14.1.2011.

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had filed WP No.25075/2012

3

WA No.3358/2011. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal by order dated 29.7.2011.

4. In pursuance of the directions issued by the learned

Single Judge, the matter was considered and a fresh order of appointment is issued to the respondent No.4. The said order is called in question in this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this

Court had directed to re-do the process of appointment of

Anganawadi worker, but without doing so, the authority has issued the order of appointment to the respondent No.4. He further contended that respondent No.4 is not the resident of the village where the Anganawadi worker is appointed.

6. The 4th respondent is married to a person who is resident of the said village. She is a domicile of the said village by virtue of the marriage. Further, the respondent

No.4 has secured 64.86 marks as against the petitioner who has secured 60.96 marks. WP No.25075/2012

4

7. Having regard to the educational qualification and also the domicile, I find that the respondents have rightly appointed respondent No.4. Hence, no grounds to interfere.

Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

RV