Dismissed

T.Padma v. the Director of Social

Madras HC1 Nov 2018WP/11104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the appointment of another candidate as an Anganwadi Worker, the High Court of Madras held that without allegations of malpractice, the selection committee's decision is binding. It dismissed the petition where facts showed the appointed candidate met residency and qualification norms.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued to reconsider the appointment; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

T.Padma Vs the Director of Social — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.11104 of 2013

¶6

T.Padma ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1.The Director of Social Welfare,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Krishnagiri.
4.The Block Child Development Officer,
ICDS, Mohan Rao Colony,
First Cross Street,
Krishnagiri.
5.Jayalakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus,
direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated
10.12.2012 filed by the petitioner for cancelling the
appointment of the 5 th Respondent as Anganwadi Worker of Child
Welfare Centre at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Dwarakapuri
in Krishnagiri Block and appoint her in the said place.

¶8

The relief sought for in thi s writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 10.12.2012 filed by the petitioner to cancel the

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

appointment of the 5 th Respondent as Anganwadi Worker of Child Welfare Centre at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Dwarakapuri in Krishnagiri Block and appoint the petitioner in the said place.

¶11

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the Post of Anganwadi worker of Child Welfare Centre at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Dwarakapuri in Krishnagiri Block. The respondents conducted an interview and the 5 th respondent was appointed contrary to the rules in force. The 5 th respondent was not residing within the radius of 3 Kms of that village. Therefore, the appointment of the writ petitioner is illegal and in violation of the guidelines issued in this regard.

¶12

3.The learned counsel Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the norms fixed by the Government was scrupulously followed, while undertaking the process of selection. The 4 th respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the 5 th respondent has been selected for the Post of Anganwadi Worker, since she is residing within 1 Km from the Center and she has passed S.S.L.C and she had answered all the questions in the interview and since the main criteria for appointment to the Post of Anganwadi Worker is ability, educational qualification, knowledge about the scheme and residency.

¶13

4.The contention of the petitioner is that she is a deserted woman, is not applicable for the post of Anganwadi Worker.

¶14

5.This Court is of an opinion that the decision of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with by the Courts' in a routine manner. The decision of the Selection Committee can be questioned, if there is any malpractice or corrupt activities. In such an event, the person, who is approaching the Court, is bound to establish all such allegations. In the absence of any such allegations, the decision of the Selection Committee is binding on all the policies.

¶15

6.In the present case, the ground raised by the writ petitioner has been answered by the respondent in their counter, by stating that the writ petitioner is residing within 1 Km from the Center and she had passed S.S.L.C. This being the factum of the case, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. This Court is of an opinion that in view of the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, setting out the facts and details, there is no necessity to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal filed by the writ petitioner.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

7.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

1.The Director of Social Welfare,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
3.The Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Krishnagiri.
4.The Block Child Development Officer,
ICDS, Mohan Rao Colony,
First Cross Street,
Krishnagiri.
+1 cc to M/s.R.Thamarai Selvan, Advocate Sr.No.75230
+1 cc to The Government Pleader, Sr.No.75909
W.P.No.11104 of 2013
NRI(CO)
CSL/28.11.2018

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Padma v. the Director of Social

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Padma v. the Director of Social

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Subramani, Vs the Deputy Secretary

Mr. P.Rajendran, Vs the Regional Manager

M/S.Mantralayamahan Ads., Vs the Senior Divisional

V.Elaiyarani Vs the Director of Social

C.Manickam, Vs K.Senathipathi

C.Ashok Kumar Vs the Transport Secretary