Smt. Sumitra Chandram Bemur vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Aravind Kumar, J.—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.

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.

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, L 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.

Per contra, Sri. A. Syed Habeeb, learned Additional Government Advocate would support the action of respondents and issuance of selection list dated 31.12.2015 Annexure-N contending inter alia that respondent No. 5 has studied up to SSLC and her marks compared to the petitioner being higher and she being the candidate who had possessed highest marks in SSLC, she has been selected. He would elaborate his submission by contending that if a candidate who has studied SSLC in other States applies to the post of Anganawadi Worker, as per Notification dated 24.08.2015-Annexure-A and different pattern relating to the maximum marks is prescribed by other State than what is prescribed by Karnataka State, then in such an event only applications of candidates belonging to Karnataka State would alone be considered to be eligible and as such, he submits that taking these aspects into consideration candidature of respondent No. 5 was declared as selected and there is no infirmity in the said selection.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it is noticed that undisputedly petitioner had applied for the post of Anganawadi Worker in Koluragi Anganawadi Centre, pursuant to notification dated 24.08.2015-Annexure-A. Eligibility criteria prescribed under the said Notification at Sl.No.2 would indicate that where candidates who have studied in different States applies for said post and in the event of said State having prescribed maximum marks in a different pattern from the one prescribed by the Karnataka State then, in such an event, candidates who have studied in Karnataka State alone would be considered to be eligible. Eligibility criteria prescribed under Annexure-A-Notification reads as under:-

(Vernacular matter omitted.. .Ed.)

It is not the contention of Sri. S. Mamadapur, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that petitioner had secured higher marks than respondent No. 5 or she being otherwise eligible for being appointed except contending that petitioner being physically disabled person, her candidature has to receive preference over others in view of said reservation having been provided under the Notification-Annexure-A.

There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that where there are more than one applications then selecting authority will have to give preference to physically handicapped applicant and he/she would be eligible to be appointed over others and subject to there being no other candidates who are otherwise entitled to be appointed under any other category like widow, victim of acid attack and so on.

In the instant case, records would indicate that petitioner has studied her high school and completed her SSLC at K. Bobalad, Jath Taluk, Sangli District, in Maharashtra State. SSLC marks card issued to the petitioner at Annexure-C would indicate that maximum marks prescribed is 750. Whereas, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board has prescribed maximum marks of 625 for SSLC students. Petitioner has obtained total marks of 323 and respondent No. 5 has secured 492 marks. In view of the fact that condition No. 2 prescribed under the Notification itself indicated that where applicant has studied outside the State and if the maximum marks prescribed being different from the one prescribed by the Karnataka State, then candidate of the Karnataka State alone would have precedent cannot be lost sight of.

In that view of the matter, respondent No. 5 being the candidate from Karnataka State and she having secured higher marks than the petitioner she has been rightly selected. No infirmity can he found in the selection list dated 31.12.2015-Annexure-N. Hence, writ petition dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.