Smt. Jyothi vs The State of Karnataka, Women and Child Development Department, The Child Development Planning Officer, The Deputy Director Child Development and Women Welfare Development Officer and The Anganawadi Kendra Bisalehalli Gramapanchayath

Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioner in terms of the notification dated 14.02.2012, sought for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Assistant. However, her application was rejected. Hence, the present petition. Heard Shri. R.C. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondents.

The petitioner counsel submits that the only ground on which the petitioner was not appointed was that she did not produce B.P.L. (Below Poverty Line) Card. However, he submits that in terms of clause-(ii) of the guidelines dated 10.06.2011, in the absence of B.P.L. Card, the authorities should consider the A.P.L. (Above Power Line) Card of the applicant. The petitioner however has produced Anthyodaya Card in terms of Annexure J to the writ petition.

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate relying on the statement of objections submits that on receipt of the application from various candidates, the certificates were examined. That three candidates had submitted their application from the said Village. In terms of the norms laid down by the Government, one of the candidates Smt. Parvathi, did not have the minimum educational qualification. The other candidate Smt. G.K. Manjula, has studied upto IXth standard, but she did not produce the current income certificate but had produced the income certificate for the year 2008. Nor has she submitted a residential proof. Therefore, the only candidate remaining was Smt. Jyothi, namely the petitioner. She has passed VIIth standard. But her annual income exceeds the prescribed income of Rs. 12,000/- per annum as fixed by the State Government. In terms of the income certificate she has declared the income as Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Therefore, he pleads that she is not entitled for the post.

However, on considering the material on record, I am of the view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The prescribed income so far as B.P.L. family is Rs. 12,000/- per annum. However, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, she is a holder of Anthyodaya Card. Therefore, the respondents are expected to look into the said document produced by the petitioner. Apparently, they have failed to do so. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed or not would arise only after the respondents consider the relevant documents produced.

In view of the fact that the same has not been done the petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief. However, in view of the long passage of time, it is only just and necessary that the respondents issue a fresh notification and thereafter process the applications that are received in accordance with law. In that case, if the petitioner applies for the same, the respondents to consider the Anthyodaya card and other documents produced by the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The notification dated 14.02.2012 at Annexure-A passed by the second respondent-the Child Development Planning Officer, Chikmagalur District is quashed. The respondents are directed to call for a fresh appointment for the Anganwadi Assistant. In case the petitioner applies to the said post, the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.