Rizvan Begum vs The State of Karnataka

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—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. 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.

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. In the matter on hand, admittedly respondent No. 6 did not possess SSLC qualification as on 06.08.2012 i.e. as on the date of notification Annexure- ''A'' inviting applications. She completed SSLC only in the month of May, 2013, as is clear from Annexure-''H'' (SSLC Certificate). Records produced by respondent No. 6 while filing application seeking appointment, such as, Annexure-''C6'' (identity card for disabled) issued by the competent authority clearly discloses that respondent No. 6 is having 75% disability. Thus it is clear that respondent No. 6 neither had SSLC qualification nor had the disability below 60%. Thus, respondent No. 6 was not entitled to apply. Despite the same, she applied. Thus, it is clear case of abuse of process of law.

Moreover, the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker as per Annexure-''B'' on 15.12.2012 itself. Such appointment is made known to the public at large by affixing the list of appointees on the notice board. Despite the same, respondent No. 6 suppressing the said fact, approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 87184/2012 with an averment that the application filed by respondent Nos. 6 is still pending consideration and no action is taken, While filing the writ petition respondent No. 6 has suppressed the fact that appointment of petitioner was already made by then. It is also suppressed in the writ petition by respondent No. 6 that she did not have SSLC qualification'' as on the date of notification or filing of her application and that she had disability about 75%. These facts were suppressed with a, clear intention of misguiding the Court. This Court decided the said writ petition on 18.07.2013 directing respondent No. 5 to consider the application filed by respondent No. 6, in accordance with law. Obtaining such order by this Court by respondent No. 6 by suppressing all the facts clearly amounts to abuse of process of law.

Respondents 2 to 5 further erred in re- i opening the entire issue pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.07.2013. There was no'' need for reopening the entire matter relating to appointment of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Hattigudur Anganwadi Centre in view of the order of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner long back. Despite respondent No. 6 not eligible to be appointed, she was appointed by transferring the petitioner to some i other Anganwadi Centre. Thus the entire process is illegal and arbitrary. It is respondent No. 6 who has not only misdirected the Court but also the authorities. She has abused the process of the Court and law. Therefore, heavy cost has to be imposed on her. In view of the same, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order stands quashed. Respondent No. 6 is imposed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). The cost shall be recovered from her as arrears of land revenue.