Dismissed

Tmt.B.Mariya Stell Mary, v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Mar 2020WP/8905/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the appointment of a locally recruited Noon Meal Organiser over the petitioner. The High Court upheld the appointment, ruling that the respondent's residence in the same village satisfied the statutory preference criteria.

What did the court decide?

No direction to reconsider the appointment; the petition is dismissed.

Tmt.B.Mariya Stell Mary, Vs the District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.03.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 8905 of 2013 and M.P. 2 of 2013

¶6

Tmt. B.Mariya Stella Mary

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1. The District Collector, Cuddalore District.

¶10

2. The Commissioner/Block Development Officer, Melpuvanakiri Panchayat Union, Cuddalore District.

¶11

3. The Headmaster Ambalpuram Panchayat Union Primary School, Ambalpuram, Cuddalore District.

¶12

4. Selvi P.Revathi

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned proceedings of the 1 st respondent in appointing the 4 th respondent as Noon Meal Organiser, in the 3rd respondent school, vide Na.Ka.Pidi.1/3748/2012, dated 26.09.2012 and quash the same and direct the 1 st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in the 3 rd respondent school.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents : Mrs.M.Jayashree, Govt. Advocate for R1

¶16

Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 Mrs.V.Annalakshmi, Govt. Advocate for R3

¶17

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

¶18

Mr.A.Muthukumar for R4

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the 1^st respondent appointing the 4^th respondent as Noon Meal Organiser at Ambalpuram Colony Panchayat Union Elementary School.

¶21

According to the petitioner, when a vacancy was arose for the post of Noon Meal Organiser in Ambalpuram Panchayat Union Elementary School, which falls in B.C. Category, a paper advertisement in Tamil newspaper was issued inviting suitable candidates for the said post. The petitioner is fully qualified, as she had passed S.S.L.C. and also residing at Uluthur, which is from a radius of 1 ½ km. for the said school. The petitioner belongs to Christian Adidravida community. Subsequently, an interview was conducted by the selection committee on 09.07.2012, and the petitioner has also appeared before the Committee and produced all the certificates. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent has appointed the 4^th respondent herein as Noon Meal Organiser. According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent does not fall under the eligibility criteria, she belong to backward community, her father having 3 acres of land and her father cultivating 8 more acres of land belong to temple. She is also having higher qualification of B.Ed., which was suppressed by her, and it is not in conformity with the eligibility conditions laid down by the Government. In the said circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of appointment.

¶22

The 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that, 125 posts of Noon meal organisers were to be filled in Cuddalore District, and the posts were to be filled up as per the norms prescribed in G.O. Ms.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010. The above said G.O. prescribes eligibility criteria for the said post. As per the said G.O., the educational qualification for General and Scheduled caste candidate is a pass in X Std., and for a Scheduled tribe candidate, must have a pass / fail in VIII std., and the minimum age limit for General and Scheduled caste candidate is 21 years and a maximum age limit is 40 years, which is subject to minimum age relaxation of 18 to 20 years in the case of Scheduled Tribe, widows and Destitute women respectively. The maximum age limit is 40 years for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Widows and Destitute Women. That apart, the candidate must reside within 3 kms. from Noon Meal centre.

¶23

In respect of Ambalpuram Primary School, 31 applications have been received, out of which four were found eligible, and they were called for interview. The 4^th respondent has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the above said G.O., and she was selected for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the said post. According to the 1^st respondent, the petitioner

¶24

was residing at Uluthur, which is 2 kms. away from Noon Meal centre, whereas, the 4^th respondent is residing in the very same village viz., Ambalpuram. Since all the four candidates were qualified for the post, the 4^th respondent was residing in the same village, where the Noon Meal Centre was situated, and the petitioner was residing at Uluthur Village, which is 2 kms. away from Noon Meal Centre. Considering the relative merits of candidates, the 4^th respondent was appointed.

¶25

The 2^nd respondent also filed a separate counter affidavit stating that, the interview was conducted for four candidates, and marks were awarded to all of them based on that, the 4^th respondent has obtained highest mark. The 4^th respondent is also residing nearby Noon Meal centre, and hence, she was appointed.

¶26

The 4^th respondent also filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations stating that, her father is cultivating 3 acres of land, besides he is cultivating 8 acres of temple land, and also denying the fact that, she is possessing B.Ed. Degree.

¶27

Mr. S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would vehemently contend that, as per G.O. Ms.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010, one of the qualification for the said post is that, a person, should resides within a radius of 3 kms. from Noon Meal Centre. That apart, the petitioner, who is having highest marks in X std. examination, and also having lesser income than the 4^th respondent, and she is residing within 2 kms. from Noon Meal Centre. Without considering all those qualifications, the 1^st respondent has appointed the 4^th respondent, who does not possess the prescribed qualification. Hence, the impugned order is necessarily to be set aside.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader appearing for 1^st respondent would submit that, the applications were called for fixing the qualification as per G.O. Ms. 163, dated 18.08.2010. Out of 31 applications, 4 candidates were qualified. Since the 4^th respondent is residing in the same village, a preference was given. Considering the nature of duty involved in said post, and there is no illegality in the appointment.

¶29

Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for 4^th respondent has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this court in W.A. (MD) Nos. 792, 841, 849 to 855 etc. of 2012 etc. contended that, a preference should be given to the eligible persons residing in the same hamlet. According to the 4^th respondent, she is fully qualified to hold the said post, and also residing in the same village, whereas the petitioner is residing 2 kms. away from Noon Meal centre, hence, the 4^th respondent was appointed. Hence, there is no illegality in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶30

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as learned Government Advocates appearing for respondents 1 to 3 as well as learned counsel appearing for 4^th respondent and perused the records carefully.

¶31

The appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organisers were made as per G.O. Ms.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010. The basic qualification for appointment was that, the candidates belong to General and Scheduled caste should have minimum educational qualification of passing X Std. and Scheduled Tribe candidate must have a pass / fail in VIII Std. The minimum age limit for General and Scheduled Caste candidate is 21 years and maximum age limit is 40 years. However, the age relaxation can be permitted in case of Scheduled Tribes, widows and destitute women respectively. That apart, the candidate should reside within a radius of 3 kms. from the Noon Meal Centre. Admittedly, the petitioner and the 4^th respondent are having all the above prescribed qualification, and they were also called for interview. It is also admitted that, the petitioner is residing 2 kms. away from Noon Meal centre, whereas the 4^th respondent is residing nearby Noon Meal centre. The 4^th respondent was given preference on the ground that, she is residing in the same hamlet. The object of noon meal centre is to provide meals to the school going children. Further, there is a specific condition in the above said G.O. is that, candidate must reside within a radius of 3 kms. from Noon Meal centre enabling them to reach the school in time, and take care of children. Earlier, the distance criteria imposed in G.O.Ms. 163, dated 18.08.2010 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 792, 841, 849 to 855 etc. of 2012 etc., and the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the Government Order holding that, a person residing in the same village should be appointed, if nobody available, the eligible person, who is residing nearby village can be appointed. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :-

¶32

“52. Moreover, it is not for the first time that the Government have stipulated the distance criterion by way of G.O. Ms. No.163, dated 18.08.2010, in fact, the issue has frequently been referred to the Government for necessary clarifications and in G.O.Ms.No.203, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (Social Welfare-7) Department, dated 19.08.2005, the Government have issued such clarification. In the said Government Order, it has been pointed out that when appointments are made for Noon Meal Centres from a radius of 10 kilometers, much time is lost for the person so appointed to commute between such long distance and many a times such person does not turn up for duty, which has been noticed during surprise inspections by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ officials. Further, if the person so appointed is

¶33

not a resident of that village, he/she seeks transfer to a different panchayat/district and such matters are often litigated upto the High Court, which hampers the effective functioning of such noon meal centre. Taking into consideration such difficulties faces, the Government has issued the following clarifications in the aforesaid G.O. :-

¶34

(1)wherever there is vacancy in any Noon Meal or Anganwadi centre, eligible persons residing in the same hamlet should be appointed.

¶35

(2) Where qualified persons are unavailable in the hamlet, eligible persons from other neighbouring hamlets under the same village panchayat should be selected. If even such persons are not available, then qualified persons from other panchayats, not beyond the distance of 10 kilometers in surrounding the said panchayat should be selected.

¶36

(3) As far as municipalities/corporations are concerned, eigible persons from the same Ward where there is a vacancy should be selected, and on the availability of persons there, eligible persons from the nearby Ward should be considered, and if even such persons are not available, then persons from the same Division should be selected.

¶37

From the above, it is clear that the Government have tried its best to evolve a pragmatic solution while appointing Noon Meal Organisers from places nearer to the Noon Meal Centres, and the distance criterion has been rightly fixed taking into account the practical difficulties faced while appointing persons belonging to far off places.”

¶38

In the instant case, it is admitted that, both the petitioner and the 4^th respondent possessing all other required qualification, and considering the fact that, the 4^th respondent is residing in the same village, she was appointed, and no other malafide in the appointment of 4^th respondent. I have also gone through the records, I find no error in the order appointing 4^th respondent, and I find no merit in this Writ Petition.

¶39

At this stage, Mr. S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that, wherever any vacancy arose in the nearby Noon Meal centres, the petitioner may be considered for the said post, since the appointment is based on the qualification fixed as per G.O. Ms.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010. If at all, any vacancy arises in Noon Meal Centres from a radius of 3 kms. in the locality, where the petitioner resides, it is always open to the petitioner to apply for the same, and the respondents are directed to consider the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's case sympathetically.

¶40

With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶43

//True copy//

¶44

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶45

rpp

¶46

¶47

1. The District Collector, Cuddalore District. 2. The Commissioner/Block Development Officer, Melpuvanakiri Panchayat Union, Cuddalore District. 3. The Headmaster, Ambalpuram Panchayat Union Primary School, Ambalpuram, Cuddalore District.

¶48

+1cc to Mr .A.Muthukumar , Advocate SR.No.23021

¶49

+1cc to Government Pleader, High Court, Madras SR.No.23226

¶50

W.P. 8905 of 2013 and M.P. 2 of 2013

¶51

MR(CO) GMY(09/07/2020)

¶52

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

Tmt.B.Mariya Stell Mary, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.B.Mariya Stell Mary, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendran Vs The Inspector of Police

Kabali @ Chelladurai Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Muthambika Vs the Appellate Board

Thangasundalai @ Suresh Vs The Inspector of Police

I.Vincent Christopher, Vs the Chairman, Tangedco

P.Lakshmanan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu