A high court judge dismissed a writ petition filed by an applicant seeking a government post. The court upheld the appointment of another candidate, finding the selection process legal and justifiable and no violation of natural justice occurred.
Writ of Mandamus praying for appointment/quashing of appointment dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.08.2018
Coram
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P. No 26436 of 2008
and M.P.No. 1 of 2009
Smt. Govindammal …..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
The Collectorate Office at Villupuram
Villupuram District.
2. Tmt. Amutha .... Respondents
Prayer: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein, the District Collector, Villupuram District, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.03.2009.
2
For petitioners :Mr.M. Lalpagadur For Respondent -1 : Mr. R.S.Selvam (Government pleader)
For Respondent -2 :Mr.C.K. Vishnu Priya
O R D E R
The petitioner prays to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein, the District Collector, Villupuram District, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.03.2009.
3
Cook Helper”. Hence, the petitioner applied for the said post and the interview was held on 06.11.2008 at 1.00 p.m to 5.00 p.m at the Mugaiyur Panchayat Union (D) Manampundi for the said post of Anganwadi Noon Meals Cook Helper. But unfortunately she was not selected for the said post.
the second respondent is not a widow and she is living with high level economic status in the above said village with her husband and children and she is not residing in the said village. Hence, it is clear that the first respondent has not verified about the eligiblility criteria about the candidates and just provided appointment to the second respondent on 03.03.2009, which is illegal. Thereafter, the petitioner
4
verified and came to know, that there are vacancies in the other two schools, which come under the same taluk and submitted a representation to the first respondent in person, which was not considered. Hence, the petitioner submitted another representation on 05.03.2009 to the first respondent and to the Chief Minister’s Cell, for
which there is no response. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.
submit that they have filed the counter, in which it is alleged that the interview was conducted for the vacant 35 Anganwadi Centres in Mugaiyur Block on 06.11.2008 and the petitioner was one among them and would further submit that the petitioner in her application had stated that she is able to read Tamil. But at the time of interview, she
was not able to read or write in tamil. As per Government instructions the candidate should reside within 3 kms from the said Anganwadi Centre , Since Tmt. Amudha, who is the second respondent is residing within 1 km from the said Centre, and the income certificate produced by her stated that she is living below poverty line, since she was provided the appointment.
5
would also submit that the selection committe, selected the second respondent, as she is eligible person for appointment as Anganwadi Helper in Kottamarudhur Centre and the petitioner being a widow cannot be considered as a priority. It is only a preference when all the said qualification were possessed by the petitioner, as per the norms. Further the Selection Committee is empowered to select any suitable person based on the performance in the interview and the relevant certificates submitted by them at the time of interview.
of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this writ petition is
6
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.08.2018
smn
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To.
The District Collector,
The Collectorate Office at Villupuram
Villupuram District.
7
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J.
smn
W.P. No 26436 of 2008
and M.P.No. 01 of 2009
02.08.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of the second respondent as Anganwadi Helper was legal and justifiable despite the petitioner's claim of non-compliance with eligibility criteria.
Whether the petitioner was afforded natural justice in the selection process.
Whether the District Collector was required to consider the petitioner's representation regarding vacancies.
Smt. Govindammal
The District Collector
Tmt. Amutha
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
