Writ Petition No. 28789 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11080 WP No. 28789 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28789 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: MR. SHIVSWAMY M S/O MARIYAIAH, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O HIRIKATI VILLAGE AND POST GUNDLU PET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT AT PRESENT DISTRICT PROGRAM COORDINATOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA K., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. 3. DIRECTOR OFFICE WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. 4. JOINT DIRECTOR (PDM) DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, BENGALURU, M.S.BUILDING - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11080 WP No. 28789 of 2024 BENGALURU-560001. 5. UNDER SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, AND DEPARTMENT OF THE EMPOWERMENT OF DIFFERENTLY ABLED AND SENIOR CITIZENS. M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 FOR CONSIDERED REPRESENTATION DATED 05.02.2024 AND 21.08.2024 RESPECTIVELY MADE BY THE PETITIONER AS IN THE ANNEXURE-H AND J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2, to consider his representation dated 05.02.2024 and 21.08.2024. 2. The petitioner contends that he was selected as a District Program Coordinator and District Program Assistant at the office of the Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Chamarajanagara District for the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11080 WP No. 28789 of 2024 implementation of Pradhan Mantri Mathru Vandana Yojana (henceforth referred to as ‘PMMVY’). He contends that the Union Government had introduced Mission Shakthi Scheme, for the purpose of safety and security of women and for the implementation of various schemes, such as 'Women helpline' 'Beti Bachao Beti Padhao', a District Level Committee was formed, as per the government order dated 01.12.2022. The respondent No.3 had commended the petitioners work in implementation of PMMVY and other schemes. 3. He contends that the respondent No.5 had granted permission to respondent No.2 to appoint persons to 155 posts on contract basis subject to certain conditions specified for implementation of Mission Shakthi. The petitioner contends that the Director of Women and Child Development Department, Bengaluru had also recommended to the District Commission to consider candidates who were already working in the PMMVY at the district level and state level. He contends that in the districts of Ramanagara, Chitradurga, Chikkamagaluru, Kolar, Shivamogga, Davanagere and Gadag, the District Program Coordinators were continued as District Mission Coordinators, respectively as per the order dated 25.10.2023. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11080 WP No. 28789 of 2024 4. The petitioner contends that the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, Chamarajanagara, after considering the submissions, had directed Deputy Director, Chamarajanagara to appoint the petitioner as District Mission Coordinator by considering the earlier post that he held. The petitioner therefore submitted representation dated 05.02.2024 and 21.08.2024 to consider him as District Mission Coordinator and Mission Coordinator under the Mission Shakthi Scheme, as he was working as a District Program Coordinator in the PMMVY from the beginning of the scheme. The petitioner contends that the said representations were not considered. However, the respondent No.1 while inviting applications for the post of District Program Coordinator purposefully prescribed Ph.D qualification, though no norms were fixed when the post was filled in Gadag district and while filling the post at State Hub Empowerment of Women. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for an appropriate direction. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that similarly placed persons who were granted the benefit have been continued as District - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11080 WP No. 28789 of 2024 Program Coordinator and therefore, the same benefit has to be extended to the petitioner. 6. This writ petition was opposed by the respondents, who inter alia contended that the petitioner was selected for the implementation of the PMMVY as a District Program Coordinator at the office of the Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Chamarajanagara. However, during his term, he misused his office by claiming travel allowance and failed to perform his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors and also misused the letterhead of the respondent No.1. In that regard, the respondent No.1 had addressed a notice to the petitioner, bringing to his notice his failure to achieve performance as per the target set for providing incentive monetary benefits to improve the health and nutrition of the mother and the child and to provide adequate maternity and post-natal rest under PMMVY scheme. The petitioner purportedly replied to the notice on 18.10.2024, which was not considered to be appropriate and satisfactory. It is contended that after 11 months of contract, the petitioner should get a sanction letter from the respondent No.2 for continuation of his term. However, the petitioner without the knowledge of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11080 WP No. 28789 of 2024 respondent Nos.1 and 2, used to receive continuation orders in the same post at the state level. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents have considered the service rendered by the petitioner as not satisfactory to continue him in the post and that respondent No.2 had approved the termination on 31.12.2024. In addition, it is contended that the respondent No.1 had already selected 46 eligible applications out of 96 applications and all the 46 applicants had secured the highest marks in the qualifying examination and also possessed experience of 3 years in government and non-government organizations. Therefore, they contend that the petitioner was not invited for the interview for the post of District Mission Coordinator. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the above contentions made in the statement of objections and contended that no directions can be issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner had submitted representations claiming that he was entitled to be continued as District Mission Coordinator just the way District Mission Coordinators in Ramanagara, Chitradurga, Chikkamagaluru, Kolar, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11080 WP No. 28789 of 2024 Shivamogga, Davanagere and Gadag were continued. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had an obligation to consider the request of the petitioner and issue an appropriate reply. The respondents cannot justify the non-continuance of the petitioner by contending that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory. The respondents were bound to comply with the principles of natural justice before cursorily declaring that the petitioner was not fit to serve them, which was stigmatic and affected his right to seek public employment. The respondents are therefore bound to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 9. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed:
Decision
ORDER i. This writ petition is allowed. ii. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 05.02.2024 and 21.08.2024. In order to expedite the consideration of the representation, the petitioner is directed to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11080 WP No. 28789 of 2024 place on record the copy of the representation dated 05.02.2024 and 21.08.2024 before the respondent Nos.1 and 2 within one week from today. If the representations are filed along with a copy of this order, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the same in accordance with law and issue appropriate endorsement. iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the representation and the same shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In order to ensure compliance of the above, list this petition on 01.07.2025. BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE