Allowed

Tamil Selvi v. The District Collector

Madras HC28 Feb 2024WP/3049/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an order appointing a non-qualifying candidate as a Cook Assistant. The Court found the authority failed to verify the residence distance of candidates as mandated, quashing the order and remanding the matter for enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order appointing the third respondent is quashed. The matter is remanded to conduct an enquiry into residence distances and pass a fresh order.

Tamil Selvi Vs The District Collector — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018 and WMP.No.35117 of 2018

Tamil Selvi

..Petitioner

The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶11

The Personal Assistant to District Collector Noon Meal, Office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶12

3. Vasantha

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Pro.Na.Ka.No.1521/2016/X1 dated Nil.11.2017 quash the same and issue consequently directions to respondents 1 and 2 herein to appoint the petitioner as Cook Assistant in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Kommanayanahalli Centre, Palacode Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

¶18

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Dhanasekar For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Addl. Government Pleader For RR1 & 2 R3 served

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1521/2016/X1, dated Nil.11.2017 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Cook Assistant in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Kommanayanahalli Centre, Palacode Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record. Inspite of service of notice to the third respondent on 02.03.2018, there is no representation for the third respondent either in person or through counsel.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that she is a widow, aged about 27

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

¶26

years and she belongs to MBC community. The petitioner's husband died on

¶27

13.11.2009 and she has a daughter. It is the further case of the petitioner

¶28

that she is doing coolie work and she has passed 8^th standard and she is fully qualified for the post of Cook Assistant.

¶29

It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent has published a notification dated 08.03.2017 calling for applications to fill up the existing vacancies for the post of Cook Assistant. In response thereto, the petitioner has also submitted her application. The petitioner is residing well within 3 Kms. Radius from the work place prescribed in scheme of the said appointment. On 14.07.2017, the petitioner attended for interview. However, the 3^rd respondent, vide his proceedings dated 14.11.2017, appointed the 3^rd respondent as Cook Assistant, who is not a widow. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third

¶31

respondent is residing for more than 3 Kms. from the Noon Mean Centre. Such appointment of the petitioner is in violation of the scheme prescribed in

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

¶35

G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010. The petitioner has raised several grounds against the appointment of the third respondent stating that the petitioner is a widow.

¶36

6.The post of Cook Assistant is not earmarked for widows and therefore, the said ground is not available to the petitioner. The only ground to be considered is whether the third respondent is residing within 3 Kms. Radius, as prescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010.

¶37

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner is residing beyond 3 Kms. from the work place, but the 3^rd respondent is residing within 1 Km. from the noon meal centre. There are no other reasons stated in the counter for the appointment of the 3^rd respondent. When the Court asked the learned Additional Government Pleader with regard to how the second respondent came to a conclusion that the third respondent is residing within 1 Km. distance from the work place. In

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

¶41

response, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that he was ascertained the distance from the authorities and informed the court. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader did not tell the Court how he made a statement that 3^rd respondent is residing within one kilo metre distance. Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option than to accept the fact that the second respondent, without verifying the distance aspect, has passed the impugned order, contrary to the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.163 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 16.08.2010.

¶42

In view of the factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the second respondent appointing the third respondent as Cook Assistant in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Kommanayanahalli Centre, Palacode Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District is not substainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. The matter is remanded back to the second respondent to conduct enquiry with regard to the distance of the residence of the 3^rd respondent and the petitioner from the work place and thereafter, pass fresh

¶43

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

¶46

order on merits and in accordance with the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 16.08.2010, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is

¶48

allowed.

¶49

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

No costs.

28.02.2024

rli

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/ Non speaking order

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

¶57

¶58

The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶59

The Personal Assistant to District Collector Noon Meal, Office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

¶60

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

¶63

BATTU DEVANAND, J

rli

W.P.No. 3049 of 2018

28.02.2024

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

Tamil Selvi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamil Selvi 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

N.Ravichandran, Vs Principal Secretary to

P.Kanimozhi, Vs The Teachers Recruitment Board

Dr.a.Balasubramaniam, Vs Tamil Nadu Veterinary &

Thiru Kamaraj Aided Elementary Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

U.a.S.S.Elementary School Vs The Joint Director of

P.Soundararajan Vs The Additional Registrar of