Dismissed

Sudha, v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Nov 2020WP(MD)/15068/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the appointment of a fourth respondent as Anganwadi Assistant, alleging violation of Government Order guidelines. The High Court held that the Selection Committee acted within procedural limits, performance graded the chosen candidate, and no legal right exists to compel appointment over other selected candidates, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition stood dismissed with no costs awarded.

Sudha, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.15068 of 2012

¶2

Sudha

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶4

DATED: 23.11.2020

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.15068 of 2012

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Dindigul,

¶10

Dindigul District.

¶11

2.The District Project Officer, Dindigul,

¶12

Dindigul District.

¶13

3.The Project Officer, Integrated Child Department Service Scheme, Aathoor,

¶14

Dindigul District.

¶15

4.K.Umamaheswari ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pursuant to order passed by the 1^st Respondent in Che.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1310/m1/2012, dated 30.08.2012 quash the same and consequently, direct the 1^st respondent appoint the petitioner as a Anganvadi Assistant in Palaiya Vakkampatti, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondents : Mr.P.Mahendran (R1 To R3) Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The appointment order of 4^th respondent, as Anganwadi Assistant, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶20

The 4^th respondent was appointed in proceedings dated 30.08.2012. The grounds raised by the Writ Petitioner is that the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.110, dated 14.05.2012, was violated and the petitioner is fully qualified for the post of Anganwadi Assistant. The petitioner is residing in the same hamlet, but the 4^th respondent is residing in nearby hamlet. Without considering these aspects and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.110, the 4^th respondent was appointed.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.15068 of 2012

¶24

The counter filed by the 3^rd respondent reveals the fact that the procedures contemplated are not violated. The Selection Committee was constituted by the order of the District Collector and Committee consists of Child Development Project Officer, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre and Personal Assistant To Collector (Noon Meals), Dindigul, and the Programme Officer ICDS Cell. The Committee considered all these aspects with reference to the Government Order and conducted the process of selection. The details of the selection process is narrated in para 4 of the counter, which is extracted hereunder :

¶25

“4. It is respectfully submitted that the averments of the petitioner herein in grounds paragraphs 'I' to 'v' are denied as false. Only on the basis of performance in the interview, the 4^th respondent was preferred over 7 women candidates, who participated in the interview held on 04.08.2012. In fact, the 4^th respondent was preferred by the Selection Committee over other 6 candidates as she was found to possess good communication skill and sufficient knowledge about the scheme which were the major pre-requisites for selection as Anganwadi Worker. The necessary facts available to the Selection Committee are as follows:-

¶26

S.No.	Particulars	Petitioner Sudha	4^thRespondent Umamaheswari
1	Age	32	30
2	Qualification	10^thStd.,	Plus Two
3	Community	SC	SC
4	Marital Status	Married	Married
5.	Husband	Workshop	Collie
6	Children	2	2
7.	House	..	..
8.	Distance	1 K.M.	2 K.M
9.	Marks Scored	6	8

¶27

Apart from this, the performance of the petitioner was found to be average, whereas the 4^th respondent performed well at the interview and hence, she was preferred. Hence as per the parameters viz., residence, age, qualification, demeanor and patience prescribed by the Government, the 4^th respondent was preferred over 7 other participants including the petitioner herein and that she is serving without any blemish or complaint from the parents of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ children for the past 7 years. Inasmuch as the law is

¶28

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.15068 of 2012

¶30

well settled that no one who participated in the interview has indefeasible legal right to insist that she alone must be appointed and hence the petitioner herein is not entitled for the discretionary relief of this Hon'ble Court much less the prayer sought for which is liable for dismissal inlimine.”

¶31

In view of the facts and circumstance, the grounds raised in the present Writ Petition is untenable and further, the 4^th respondent is working in the said post for the past about 8 years and under these circumstances, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶32

// True Copy //

¶33

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶34

MPK

¶35

To 1.The District Collector, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 2.The District Project Officer, Dindigul, Dindigul District. 3.The Project Officer, Integrated Child Department Service Scheme, Aathoor, Dindigul District. +1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-22628[F] dated 24/11/2020 )

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.15068 of 2012 23.11.2020

¶37

SSS(CO) KK(03.12.2020) 3P 5C

¶38

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

¶39

Sudha, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Kangaraj, Vs the District Collector

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Thanesh Vs The Inspector of Police

A. Sunaikkili, Vs the District Eelemeentary

K. Uthami, Vs the Teachers Recruitment

Tmt. G. Lala Vs the Director of Collegiate