Dismissed

S.Sailaja v. S.Muthulakshmi

Madras HC17 Mar 2021WA(MD)/1113/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court Bench, while hearing an appeal by an appointed cook against the setting aside of her appointment, dismissed the appeal. The court held that since the appellant continued in service and accepted a promotion despite the setting aside of her appointment order, her appeal did not deserve consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed; the order of the Single Judge dated 13.03.2012 is confirmed.

S.Sailaja Vs S.Muthulakshmi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1113 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.03.2021

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

¶5

W.A(MD)No.1113 of 2012 and M.P(MD)No.3 of 2012

¶6

S.Sailaja ... Appellant/3^rd Respondent

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.S.Muthulakshmi ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner 2.The Personal Assistant to the Collector(Noon Meal) Collectorate, Musiri, Trichy District. 3.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Musiri, Trichy District. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in W.P(MD)No.11649 of 2009.

¶10

Prayer in WP(MD). 11649/ 2009 :

¶11

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, to call for the records of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.P6/808/08 dated 24-08-2009 and quash the same and further direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Cooking Assistant in Adhidhiravida Welfare Primary School, Thiruthalaiyur.

¶12

For Appellant :Mr.S.Balamurugan For R-1 :No Appearance For R-2 and R-3 :Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate

¶13

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

¶14

Page 1/4

¶15

W.A(MD)No.1113 of 2012

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

¶18

This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2012 passed in W.P(MD)No.11649 of 2009.

¶19

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶20

3.The Writ Appellant is the third respondent in the Writ Petition. Originally, the Writ Petition was filed by one Muthulakshmi challenging the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Personal Assistant to the District Collector appointing one Sailaja, wife of Chengis as Cook Assistant in Adi Dravida Welfare Primary School, Thiruthalaiyur. According to the Writ Petitioner, who is the first respondent herein, she is an agricultural coolie, having lost her husband in the year 2000, struggling to meet both ends meet. She had applied for the post of Cooking Assistant at Noon Meal Centre at Adi Dravida Primary School based on the advertisement of the second respondent. She has attended the interview and she was not informed with regard to the selection. While so, the third respondent who is the appellant herein was appointed to the said post of Cooking Assistant by the proceedings dated 24.08.2009. Therefore, the said appointment was challenged.

¶21

According to the writ petitioner, both the Writ Appellant and the Writ Petitioner belong to the same village and belong to SC Community. However, the Writ Petitioner has stated that she is a widow and senior in age and therefore, she should be given preference over the Writ Appellant herein for the post of Cooking Assistant.

¶22

5.The learned Single Judge while passing the order had held that as both the aspirants belong to the same community and same village, how the Writ Appellant was appointed as Cooking Assistant was not made clear by the official respondents. Therefore, the appointment of the Writ Appellant dated 24.8.2009 was set aside and a direction was given to the second respondent to conduct a fresh interview for the post of Cooking Assistant within a period of eight weeks calling upon the Writ Petitioner as well as the Writ Appellant and pass appropriate orders on merits. As the appointment order dated 24.08.2009 was set aside by the learned Single Judge, the third respondent in the Writ Petition had preferred the above Writ Appeal.

¶23

6.Even after service of notice, the first respondent/Writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petitioner had never appeared either in person or through counsel.

¶24

Page 2/4

¶25

W.A(MD)No.1113 of 2012

¶26

7.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that in spite of the order of the learned Single Judge, the employment of the Writ Appellant was continued and the direction given was not obeyed. While so, by proceedings dated 15.7.2016, those who had already completed five years of service were promoted as Cook. Accordingly, the Writ Appellant, who had also put in more than five years of service, was promoted as a Cook and she continued in the said employment.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate would also submit that for any appointment for the SC Community, the age limit is 35 years. The first respondent was 36 years even on the date of filing of writ Petition and today, she would have crossed 46 years in age. Therefore, she cannot be considered for any fresh appointment.

¶28

It is to be noted that the learned Single Judge had specifically set aside the order of appointment dated 24.08.2009 of the third respondent and also directed a fresh interview to be conducted for the post of Cooking Assistant in Adi Dravida Welfare Primary School, Thiruthalaiyur, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶29

The writ appeal is filed only by the third respondent in the writ petition as her appointment was set aside by this Court. However, the employment of the Writ Appellant was continued and the direction given was not obeyed and she was given promotion as a Cook. The appellant who has knowledge that her appointment was set aside and preferred an appeal against the same, had the audacity to accept the promotion. The officials concerned also had acted on their own despite having knowledge about the order of this Court.

¶30

In view of the above facts, the appeal by the appellant does not deserve to be considered as she had continued or allowed to be continued in the post even after her appointment was set aside. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 13.03.2012 passed in W.P(MD)No.11649 of 2009, is confirmed and the writ appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

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

¶33

Page 3/4

¶34

W.A(MD)No.1113 of 2012

¶35

Note :

¶36

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶37

¶38

1.The Personal Assistant to the Collector(Noon Meal) Collectorate, Musiri, Trichy District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union Office, Musiri, Trichy District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.S.BALAMURUGAN, Advocate ( SR-12411[F] dated 19/03/2021 )

¶40

W.A(MD)No.1113 of 2012 17.03.2021

¶41

NS(CO)

¶42

KK(29.03.2021) 4P 4C

¶43

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

¶44

Page 4/4

S.Sailaja v. S.Muthulakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sailaja v. S.Muthulakshmi

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

B.Saraswathy Amma Vs the District Collector

Yasotha, Vs Maruthappan @ Maruthamalai

Secretary Vs John Paul Louis

A. Bharath Kumar Vs the President

Esakki Priya Vs Veeramanikandan

Umamaheswari, Vs S.Hemandh, S/O.P.Subramanian