SMT. SAVITHA T vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 203734 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAVITHA T
W/O SANGAPPA
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ANGWADI WORKER
R/O VILLAGE HALAGUNDAKANAL
POST: ASANTPUR
TQ: DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH C. MALLABADI AND
SRI.SATISHKUMAR D. GADKAR., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT
VIJAYAPURA-586101
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
SOCIAL WELFARE AND BACKWARD CLASS
DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAPURA-586101
3. THE DEPURTY COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPURA-586101
Digitally
signed by
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, VIJAYAPURA-586101
5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND SELECTION OF ANGANWADI KARYA KARTHA
VIJAYAPURA, TQ: DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101
6. MEGHA W/O BASAPPA NIRALAGI
@ D/O LAXMAN DODAMANI
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O VILLAGE HALAGUNDAKANAL
POST: ASANTPUR,
TQ: DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.NARENDRA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT.RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH ADV., FOR R4 AND R5;
MISS VAISHNAVI MANGANE ADV., FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, I)
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 10.11.2025 IN FILE NO.
²CAiÉÆùA/CAPÁ/ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 AS PER
gÀzÀÄÝ/2025-26/307
ANNEXURE-H; II) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE
DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking following prayers:
“i) Issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 10.11.2025 in file no.
²CAiÉÆùA/CAPÁ/ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ
passed by respondent no.5 as per
gÀzÀÄÝ/2025-26/307
Annexure-H;
ii) Pass such other orders as may be deemed
appropriate in the ends of justice and equit”
2. Sri Venkatesh C Mallabadi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent
Nos.4 and 5 invited an application to appoint Anganwadi
worker, to which the petitioner as well as respondent No.6
filed an application. The petitioner's name was notified in
the provisional selection list. Thereafter, the respondent
No.6 has raised objection, which was considered by the
authorities by conducting proceedings, where they have
noticed that though the respondent No.6 is more
meritorious, her caste certificate is dated 11.11.2024,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
which is after the last date for filing an application. It is
further submitted that the respondent No.6 filed a writ
petition in WP No.201577/2025 challenging the provisional
selection list and sought direction to consider the
objections. The notice to the petitioner herein was
dispensed in the said proceedings and a writ of mandamus
was issued to the authorities to consider the objections. It
is also submitted that the respondent Nos.4 and 5
considered the objections as directed by this Court and by
considering the Division Bench Judgment of this Court
ordered to appoint the respondent No.6 under the
impugned order. It is submitted that the Division Bench
Judgment referred in the impugned order, though says
that non production of documents in certain circumstances
is a curable defect, but the said judgment cannot be relied
upon to say that later obtained document, after the last
date of filing the application also can be considered.
Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
3. Per contra , Miss. Vaishnavi Mangane, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 vehemently
opposed the writ petition and submits that this Court
issued a writ of mandamus to the authorities to consider
the objections of the respondent No.6 and the said order
was much prior to issuing the appointment order to the
petitioner herein. It is submitted that the respondent No.6
is more meritorious than the petitioner and in Annexure-
A/notification, the last date is for filing the application and
there is no such stipulation that document cannot be
produced later. It is further submitted that the respondent
No.6 has crossed the age of appointment and this is her
last chance. However, the petitioner has chances to be
appointed as an Angangwadi worker later as well and
considering the same seeks to sustain the impugned
order.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader and
learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
supports the impugned order of the authority and submits
that the authority, taking note of the order of the Division
Bench, upheld the objections of the respondent No.6 and
appointed the respondent No.6, which does not call for
any interference.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader
and learned counsels for the respondents and meticulously
perused the material available on record.
6. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 have issued
notification dated 09.10.2024 for appointment of
Anganwadi worker at Halagundakanal-02 Anganwadi
centre, Vijayapura. The notification clearly indicates that
the commencement of filing applications is from
10.10.2024 to 09.11.2024. The instruction number 3
clearly indicates that the candidates are required to upload
all the documents online and documents uploaded later
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
will not be verified and considered. It is to be noticed that
the petitioner and the respondent No.6 both have applied
to the said post as an Anganwadi worker. It is to be
noticed that the petitioner has been appointed as an
Anganwadi worker provisionally and the said provisional
list was objected by the respondent No.6, before the
committee for appointment. The committee conducted its
proceedings on 03.06.2025 as per Annexure-D and at
paragraph No.30, considered the objections. It is noticed
that the respondent No.6 had uploaded incorrect Caste
Certificate and it is further noticed that the Caste
Certificate produced by the respondent No.6 along with
the objections was dated 11.11.2024, which is after the
last date of filing application.
7. It is also to be noticed that respondent No.6
has filed a writ petition in WP No.201577/2025, wherein
the petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.6 and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
in the said proceedings, issuance of notice to the petitioner
herein was dispensed. Though, the petitioner in the said
writ petition, who is respondent No.6 herein sought to
challenge the provisional selection of the petitioner herein,
however this Court directed the respondent Nos.4 and 5
therein to consider the petitioner's grievance/objection and
take appropriate decision. Pursuant to the said direction,
the authorities by referring to the order of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Ambuja v. The
1
State of Karnataka and others appointed respondent
No.6, which is called in question.
8. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.6 is
academically more meritorious than the petitioner. It is
also not in dispute that the respondent No.6 has produced
the caste certificate dated 11.11.2024, which is a caste
certificate obtained after the last date for filing the
1
WA No.200257/2024 dt. 21.03.2025
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
applications. With this background, if the reasoning of the
Division Bench in the aforesaid decision is considered, I
am of the considered view that the authority placing
reliance on the decision of the Division Bench and coming
to the conclusion that the defect is a curable defect in
producing the caste certificate later, is perverse and
arbitrary.
9. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid
decision at paragraph No.12 held as under:
“
12. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme and this Court
referred supra, we are of the considered view that
the nonuploading of residential certificate by the
appellant at the time of filling of online application
was due to technical snag and the application clearly
mentions that the correct number of residential
certificate which was obtained by the appellant prior
to the last date of filing of the application for the
selection to the post of Anganawadi Helper. In other
words, the appellant was in possession of the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
residential certificate issued by the competent
authority. However, she could not upload the same
due to technical defects which has been considered
by the official respondents and the same was
accepted in its meeting proceedings dated
18.10.2022. The appointing authority has also taken
note of the fact that the appellant is more
meritorious than any of the candidates and issued
the appointment order to the appellant. We do not
find any error in the action taken by the official
respondents in issuing the appointment order to the
appellant as an Anganawadi Helper at Mallappanwadi
Anganawadi Center. In our considered view, the
learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the
fact that non-uploading of the residential certificate
by the appellant was a bonafide error and the same
”
was a curable defect.
10. The aforesaid observations of the Division
Bench makes it clear that in the said case the applicant
could not upload the document due to technical snag.
However, those documents were prior to the date of filing
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
of application. However, in the case on hand, admittedly
respondent No.6 has produced the Caste Certificate, which
is obtained after the last date for filing an application.
Hence, accepting such a caste certificate and treating this
as a curable defect, is impermissible. For the
aforementioned reasons the impugned order appointing
respondent No.6 is liable to be interfered with.
11. The contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent No.6 that the respondent No.6 would be age
barred to make a further application and that the
petitioner had further opportunities to apply for the post of
Anganwadi worker has no merit consideration. It is clear
that the document placed by the respondent No.6 before
the authority seeking appointment is a document issued
later i.e. after the last date to file an application. Hence,
the appointment is contrary to the decision of the Division
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11175
WP No. 203734 of 2025
CNR: KAHC030150712025
Bench referred supra as well as the notification issued by
the authority dated 09.10.2024.
12. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed . Impugned order
dated 10.11.2025 at Annexure-H passed by
the respondent No.5 appointing respondent
No.6 is set aside.
ii. The respondent No.5 is directed to appoint
the petitioner herein to the said post forthwith
by issuing the appointment order.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44