Kumari Tejashwini and Others vs The Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Development and Others

Aravind Kumar, J.—I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths P.G. Mogali, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri. H.M. Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P. 102361/2015 and Sri. Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 in W.P. 100001/2015 and respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. 102361/2015.

Petitioner in W.P. 100001/2015 is seeking for a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 1 to appoint petitioner as an Anganawadi Worker of Neeraluti Village, No. 2 Centre, Kushtagi Taluka, in terms of the order passed by this court in W.P. No. 76732/2013 dated 05.08.2014 Annexure-B and to pay salary and other service benefits from 18.02.2013 by treating her as an Anganawadi worker of said Centre.

Second respondent is the petitioner in W.P. 102361/2015 whereunder she is seeking for quashing of the report dated 12.12.2014 Annexure-H submitted by second respondent.

This is a second round of litigation in respect of appointment of Anganawadi worker to Neeraluti, No. 2 Centre, Kushtagi Taluk. On applications being invited for the post of Anganawadi worker Neeraluti, No. 2 center petitioner and second respondent amongst others applied for the said post and petitioner came to be selected since she had secured higher marks in SSLC from amongst the candidates applied and accordingly provisional list was published. One Smt. Hanumavva filed objections to the provisional list contending that petitioner is not a resident of Neeraluti Centre No. 2. On enquiry it was found that there were no wards in the village. However second respondent came to be selected on the ground that petitioner''s name is not within Neeraluti, No. 2 Centre. Aggrieved by this selection petitioner had approached this court contending that she in a resident of Neeraluti Centre No. 2. After considering rival contentions this court found that petitioner has secured 69.76% in SSLC as against respondent No. 2 herein who has secured 45.6% (respondent No. 8 in WP No. 76732/2013) in SSLC. On the issue as to whether the petitioner therein is a resident of Neeraluti, No. 2 Centre or not, this court opined that it requires reconsideration and an enquiry has to be held to find out as to whether petitioner is a resident of Neeraluti, No. 2 Centre or not. Hence, it was ordered that 2nd respondent should conduct an enquiry in this regard and if petitioner is found to be resident of Neeraluti, No. 2 Centre she should be considered for the post of Anganawadi Worker of Neeraluti, No. 2 Centre. The operative portion of the order passed in W.P. No. 76732/2013 reads as under:

"(i) The second respondent is directed to hold an enquiry by giving an opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 to find out whether the petitioner is the resident of Neeraluti-2 centre or not. If it is found that the petitioner is the resident of Neeraluti-2 centre, then the petitioner may be considered for the post of Anaganawadi Worker of Neeraluti-2 centre in the place of respondent No. 8." 5. Pursuant to the said direction issued to the first respondent herein, an enquiry is said to have been conducted by conducting spot inspection and a report came to be made on 12.12.2014 vide Annexure-C. On such enquiry it has been found that there is no separate ward in Neeraluti village and entire village was considered as one and it was also found that petitioner is a resident of Neeraluti Village. It is this report dated 12.12.2014 Annexure-C which has been questioned by second respondent herein (WP No. 100001/2015) in W.P. 102361/2015 contending interalia that second respondent without conducting proper survey and without considering the documents has submitted a report, reporting that there are no wards in Neeraluti Village, though said village consists of two Centres namely Centre No. 1 and 2 and she being a resident of Centre No. 2 Neeraluti Village she has been rightly selected and fourth respondent (in W.P. 102361/2015 who is petitioner in W.P. 100001/2015) being resident of Centre No. 1 she could not be entitled for being appointed and as such it was contended that no interference is called for insofar as her selection is concerned. Hence, she has sought for quashing of the report dated 12.12.2014.

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner in W.P.100001/2015 is concerned being a resident of Neeraluti Village, Direction issued by this court was to find out as to whether petitioner is a resident of Neeraluti, No. 2 Centre or not. Pursuant to said direction a report has been submitted by the first respondent stating thereunder that there is no separate ward and entire village has been taken into consideration for the purpose of evaluating the applications and as such it has been noticed in the said report that petitioner is a resident of Neeraluti village and she being entitled to be considered for being appointed. Though second respondent in W.P. 100001/2015 would vehemently oppose aforesaid report dated 12.12.2014 being accepted or considered, this court is not inclined to accept said contention raised in that regard for the simple reason that the list or survey book extract of which has been produced by her in W.P.102361/2015 at Annexure-E would clearly indicate that at Sl. No. 79 there has been tampering of serial number as well as name. From Sl. No. 525-531 corrections have been carried out. Though Sri. Dharigond, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in W.P. 102361/2015 would try to support the said correction carried out, date found in the attestation would indicate that name of the second respondent i.e., petitioner in W.P. 102361/2015 has been inserted on 14.02.2013 i.e., after appointment order is issued to her. In other words as on 06.09.2012 when notification came to be issued name of the second respondent i.e., Smt. Huligemma was not found in the survey report relating to Neeraluti village. In that view of the matter it would suffice if a direction is issued to the second respondent (in W.P. 102361/2015) to conduct an enquiry with regard to the said insertion, the mode, manner and method in which such insertion having come into existence by affording opportunity to the concerned person, and if it is found that said entry is not in accordance with the factual matrix or if it is found that records have been tampered first respondent in W.P. 100001/2015 would be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the concerned official departmentally also and initiate proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for tampering with the records of the Government.

Now turning my attention back to the issue on question, it would not detain this court too long to hold that appointment of second respondent is bad in Law and contrary to the factual aspect, since report of 1st respondent dated 12.12.2014 would clearly indicate that petitioner in W.P. 100001/2015 is a resident of Neeraluti village and she having secured 69.76% marks in SSLC as against 45.6% marks obtained by second respondent and she being more meritorious than 2nd respondent or other candidates, she is required to be appointed.

Hence, for reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

"1. W.P. 100001/2015 is hereby allowed with costs.

A direction is issued to the first respondent to appoint petitioner in W.P. No. 100001/2015 as an Anganawadi worker of Neeraluti, No. 2 Centre.

W.P. 102361/2015 is hereby dismissed.

Respondent No. 2 in W.P. 100001/2015 is directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks from today, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to apply to the registry of this court for issuance of certificate and on obtaining such certificate she would be entitled to file Execution petition before Civil Court for recovery of the said amount from second respondent."

Ordered accordingly.