Reshma vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Learned High Court Government Pleader^{11.‘HCGP’, for short} is permitted to file Statement of Objection.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents.

This petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 12.06.2026 issued by the respondent No.3, rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment as an Anganvadi Worker in Yalabunachi-2 Anganavadi Centre, Kushtagi Taluk, Koppal District.

The contents of the petition would disclose the following facts:

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganvadi Worker. Her appointment was questioned before this Court. Ultimately the appointment was set aside on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualification by that time, the petitioner had put in 8 years of service.

The petitioner later has filed an application to consider the petitioner's appointment to the post of an Anganvadi Worker at some other place and the same is rejected vide endorsement at Annexure-A, wherein it is stated that the post for which the petitioner has applied is a promotional post, as such, the petitioner is not eligible for the post.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9797/2026 to contend that the expression of ‘Direct Recruitment’ in Karnataka Department of Women and Child Development (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2020 found in Sl.No.23 item No.(ii) and (iii) of the schedule is to be read down as “Promotion by Selection”. By referring to the further directions issued in the said judgment, learned counsel would contend that the petitioner's previous qualification as Anganvadi Worker is to be taken into account to consider the appointment of petitioner for the said post.

In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.100207/2023 c/w Writ Appeal No.100299/2023 to contend that the matter was remanded to the to the competent authority for fresh consideration and would urge that the petitioner is entitled to the relief.

The learned HCGP would oppose the petition. Learned HCGP would also submit that when the in-house eligible candidate is available for promotion, notification inviting the application for the promotional post is not permissible and the petitioner is not eligible for the said post.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

Admitted factual position is, the petitioner is not appointed and after remand of the matter by the Division Bench, Smt.Dyamakka was appointed. Hence, the petitioner is not in the post of Anganvadi Worker. The petitioner has not questioned the order, appointing Dyamakka wife of Kalakappa Kuntoji.

Thus, the petitioner is not an Anganvadi Worker. The petitioner cannot be considered for the promotional post, which is meant for the persons who are working as Anganvadi Workers. This Court does not find any error in the impugned endorsement.

Hence, the following:

The petition is dismissed.