AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The case of the petitioner is that on an application being called for the post of ''Anganawadi Karyakarthe'', she submitted her application along with marks card of S.S.L.C. and P.U.C. and other particulars. Her name was found in the Provisional Selection list. Inspite of the same, she was not selected. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. Even when the matter was listed on 05.07.2013 and on 21.8.2013 there was no representation.
Heard the learned Government Advocate.
The case sought to be made out by the petitioner is that she has secured more marks than respondent no. 4, who has now been selected. That even though her name was found in the Provisional List, she was not selected. Hence, the impugned order of appointment of respondent no. 4, requires to be quashed.
The learned Government Advocate relies on his statement of objection. He contends that the petitioner was a resident of the locality for the past 3-4 months alone. That she was residing in a different place in Kotte earlier to that. That based on the enquiry conducted, it was found that she was not the resident of the concerned village and hence she was not selected.
On hearing the learned Government Advocate, I am of the considered view that there is no error in the impugned order that calls for interference in this writ petition. The Provisional List has been prepared based on the marks obtained by the applicants. Obviously she has obtained more marks than respondent no. 4. However, other particulars also require to be satisfied by the petitioner, including her status as a resident of the said locality. Even though she claimed to be a local resident, on an enquiry conducted by the respondent, it was found that she was the resident of Kotte only for past 3-4 months. Therefore, should would not be eligible for appointment based on her status as resident. The enquiry was conducted by the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Kunigal, in terms of the enquiry dated 02.12.2009.
Under these circumstances, necessarily the petitioner has not been appointed and respondent no. 4 being the local resident has therefore been appointed. Under these circumstances, granting an appointment only based on the marks obtained is inappropriate. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the requirements of being a local resident. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Rule discharged.