Umadevi vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The appointment of the 6th respondent as Anganawadi worker of Ward No. 17 (Athani Galli) of Sindagi taluk is called in question in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, she is resident of Ward No. 17, whereas Respondent No. 6 is resident of Ward No. 15. Thus the petitioner contends that the appointment of Respondent No. 6 as Anganawadi worker is bad in the eye of law.

To verify the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner, notices were issued to the respondents. The Tahsildar of Sindagi has filed an affidavit dated 23.1.2014 to the effect that Respondent No. 6 is not the resident of Ward No. 17, but she is resident of Ward No. 15. He has further stated in the affidavit that Respondent No. 6 is residing with her father viz., Yellappa Jabanavar at Ward No. 15. He has also stated that even after the marriage, the 6th respondent - Manjula is residing in Ward No. 15. However, the then Child Development Project Officer - K.K. Chavan has sworn to an affidavit on 21.3.2009 to the effect that Respondent No. 6 is a resident of Ward No. 17 of Sindagi taluk. Since there were conflicting views on facts, explanation was sought for. One more affidavit is filed by the present Child Development Project Officer, Sindagi viz., Gurushantappa s/o Sharanappa Gunari to the effect that he visited Ward No. 17 of Sindagi taluk alongwith the Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council, Sindagi and found that the 6th respondent is not the resident of Ward No. 17 of Sindagi. The affidavit of Gangandhar, in-charge Chief Officer of Town Municipal Council, Sindagi dated 12.2.2014 also is to the same effect.

The Child Development Project officer is present before the Court alongwith the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Sindagi. Both of them have orally submitted before the Court that the 6th respondent is residing at Ward No. 15 of Sindagi taluk prior to her marriage and even after her marriage. The said statement is recorded.

From the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the 6th respondent is not the resident of Ward No. 17 of Sindagi taluk. The Anganawadi Centre for which appointment is made is situated at Ward No. 17 of Sindagi taluk. Thus it is amply clear that the 6th respondent who is not the resident of Ward No. 17 is wrongly appointed. It is needless to observe that one of the essential conditions for appointment is that the appointee should be from the very place wherein the Centre is situated.

Accordingly, the appointment of the 6th respondent as Anganawadi worker of Ward No. 17 of Sindagi taluk stands quashed. However she shall hold the post for two more months from this date in order to facilitate the State Government/Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to make alternative arrangements by issuing notification inviting applications for appointment afresh. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are directed to issue notification afresh inviting applications for the post of Anganawadi worker of Ward No. 17 of Sindagi taluk and appoint the Anganawadi worker in accordance with law as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of two months from this date.

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.