Dismissed

K.Palaniammal v. The Secretary to the

Madras HC20 Sept 2023WP/9029/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notification on reservation policy for noon meal organizers. Respondents submitted that the post is closed due to low school strength, rendering the relief sought obsolete. Court allowed respondents to pass appropriate orders and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim stay order vacated; respondents permitted to pass appropriate orders.

K.Palaniammal Vs The Secretary to the — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P.No.9029 of 2017

¶7

and W.M.P.Nos.9944 & 9945 of 2017

K.Palaniammal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare and Nutrition Meals Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District.

¶13

3.The District Project Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶14

4.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Harur, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the concerned records of the 4^th respondent made in press news dated 10.03.2017 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

¶18

respondent to follow overall reservation for the available vacancy and to allot the seat based on the communal reservation and to follow reservations in the selection horizontally & vertically based on the vacancy as per the reservation policy and to allow the candidates to participate for the selection irrespective of their residential status and to refrain from earmarking reservation based on the post and granting of priority based on the nativity of the candidates.

¶19

For Petitioner .. Mr.Paramsivadoss For Respondents .. Mr.T.K.Saravanan, Govt. Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records of the 4^th respondent, in the press news dated 10.03.2017 and to quash the same and follow the overall reservation for the available vacancy and allot the seats on the communal reservation.

¶22

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner

¶23

had stated that a selection was proposed to allocate reservation for a particular community to a particular village school and reservation of the community is earmarked for a priority candidate. This is with respect to the

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

¶26

noon meal organizers in various schools. The petitioner is actually working

¶27

as a temporary noon meal organizer in Karapadi Village School.

¶28

3.The impugned notification of the respondents was a press news and it only gave a general indication about necessary qualification required for applying to noon meal organizer. The petitioner had filed the writ petition questioning this particular notification, more particularly, the reservation policy, which had been determined.

¶29

4.When the writ petition was came up for consideration, a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 17.04.2017, had stayed the notification, more particularly with respect to the petitioner since she was working as temporary noon meal organizer at Karapadi Village school.

¶30

5.However, on the side of the respondents instructions have been forwarded that a noon meal organizer can be appointed only when the school strength is more than 25 students and in the school where the petitioner is working, there are less than 25 students and therefore the respondents are taking steps to close down the post of noon meal organizer

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

¶33

itself.

¶34

6.Therefore, the relief sought in the writ petition does not survive any

¶35

longer. The respondents are permitted to pass any appropriate orders and if the petitioner is aggrieved, the petitioner is at liberty to question the same in manner known to law. The interim order granting stay stands vacated.

¶36

7.With the above observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. No

¶37

costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

20.09.2023

¶39

smv Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

¶42

¶43

1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare and Nutrition Meals Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶44

2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District.

¶45

3.The District Project Officer, Dharmapuri District.

¶46

4.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Harur, Dharmapuri District.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

¶49

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv

W.P.No.9029 of 2017

20.09.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Palaniammal v. The Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Palaniammal v. The Secretary to the

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

V.T.Maheshkumar, Vs The Managing Director

Mrs.S.Kiruba Vs The Secretary to Government

N.Raja Ganapathy, Vs The Managing Director

Niranjan Kumar Poddar Vs The Chief General Manager

C.Sudha Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Gopinath Vs Shankar Jiwal IPS and 2 others