Disposed¶33

Nanthagopal, v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Feb 2025WP/11048/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition (Art. 226) by Nanthagopal v. District Collector, Cuddalore & others; Village Assistant appointment; refusal to permit joining duty citing 'mentally retarded' entry in employment card; differently abled / physically challenged category; absence of speaking order and show cause; unconsidered representation dated 16.07.2018; direction to Tahsildar, Kattumannarkoil to decide representation on merits within four weeks; decided 12.02.2025 by R.N. Manjula, J.; no precedent cited; disposed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2018 and pass orders on merits within four (4) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs. ¶33

Nanthagopal, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was issued an order of appointment dated 27.06.2018 to the post of Village Assistant, could be refused permission to join duty on the ground that he is recorded as mentally retarded, without the third respondent passing any written/speaking order. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Before refusing to permit the appointed petitioner to join duty on the ground of his recorded mental condition, the respondent was expected to issue a show cause, give him an opportunity to explain, and then pass an order on his mental eligibility to hold the appointment; no such order has been passed so far.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner had attended the interview, and at that time no objection was raised that he lacked the mental capability to perform the role of Village Assistant.

¶27

Key takeaways

Since the appointed petitioner was not allowed to join without any speaking order of refusal, the appropriate course was for the third respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2018; the respondent was directed to consider that representation and pass orders on merits within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus - Appointment as Village Assistant, Udayagudi Village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk - Petitioner appointed vide order dated 27.06.2018 (Na.Ka. A5/1736/2018) by the Tahsildar (third respondent); fitness certificate produced on 07.07.2018 as required by the appointment order; joining duty refused on the basis of an entry 'mentally retarded' in the petitioner's employment card, without any written/speaking order; petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2018 unconsidered. Held: before denying joining on such ground the respondent was expected to issue show cause, afford an opportunity to explain, and pass an order on mental eligibility; no such order passed; at interview no objection had been raised to the petitioner's capability. Petition disposed directing the third respondent to consider the representation dated 16.07.2018 and pass orders on merits within four weeks; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P. No. 11048 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P. No. 11048 of 2019 and W.M.P. No. 11486 of 2019

Nanthagopal

… Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector Office of the District Collector Cuddalore.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Divisional Office Chidambaram.

¶12

The Tahsildar Taluk Office Kattumannarkoil Cuddalore District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty for the post of Village Assistant, Udayagudi Village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District in view of the order of appointment dated 27.06.2018 vide Na.Ka. A5/1736/2018 issued by the third respondent.

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

W.P. No. 11048 of 2019

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Pugazhenthi For Respondents : Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, GA (RR1 to 3)

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for directing the third respondent to permit the petitioner to join duty for the post of Village Assistant, Udayagudi Village, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District in view of the order of appointment dated 27.06.2018 vide Na.Ka. A5/1736/2018 issued by the third respondent.

¶20

2. Heard Mr.G.Pugazhenthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶21

3. The grievance to be ventilated by the petitioner is that the petitioner, who has challenged the order of appointment issued by the third respondent, is not allowed to join service by citing the reason that he is mentally retarded.

¶22

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was called for interview to be held on 22.06.2018 through a call letter dated

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

W.P. No. 11048 of 2019

¶26

13.06.2018. He also attended the interview and thereafter, he was issued with the appointment order dated 27.06.2018 by the third respondent. As per the conditions in the appointment order, the petitioner has to obtain physical fitness certificate. He produced it on 07.07.2018. But he was not allowed to join by pointing out that the petitioner's employment card it is entered that he is a mentally retarded person. So it is found that he is not qualified to assume the job of the Village Assistant.

¶27

5. The identity card(ID) produced by the petitioner has got an entry as ' mentally retarded ' and he is a differently abled person. However, the third respondent did not pass any written order as to why the petitioner has not been allowed to join. The petitioner had attended the interview and that time it was not objected that the petitioner did have the mental capability to perform the role of Village Assistant. For the reasons known to the petitioner, he has registered himself as physically challenged category, that too, a mentally retarded person. In such case, the respondent is expected to issue a show cause to the petitioner and given an opportunity to give his explanation and then pass an order as to his mental eligibility to avail an order of appointment. So far, no such order has been passed. In fact, the petitioner has given a representation on

¶28

16.07.2018. That representation also has not been considered so far.

¶29

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

¶30

3/6

¶31

W.P. No. 11048 of 2019

¶32

¶33

6. As the petitioner, who had been given with the appointment order of the third respondent is not allowed to join without any speaking order of the refusal by citing the order of disposal, I feel it is appropriate that the third respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 16.07.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. The third respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 16.07.2018 and pass orders on merits within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶34

12.02.2025

¶35

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

¶36

Maya

¶37

¶38