Disposed¶51

S.Kartheepa, W/o.a.Selvam v. The District Collector

Madras HC5 Feb 2025WP/19897/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anganwadi worker appointment - residence criterion 3 km radius - G.O.Ms.No.110 Social Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department dated 14.05.2012 - extension of distance to 10 km radius around neighbouring Panchayats where no eligible candidate in same hamlet - widow category candidate - comparative interview marks, 15/50 for knowledge assessment - no mala fides proved - age relaxation request or policy decision - writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 - Nagapattinam District - writ petition disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was disposed with no costs and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed. ¶51

S.Kartheepa, W/o.a.Selvam Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was disposed with no costs and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointment of the 5th respondent as main Anganwadi worker in Punugunathapuram Anganwadi is illegal and in violation of the government guidelines because she resides 7 kilometres away, beyond the 3-km residence criterion. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

There is no illegality or irregularity in the appointment process: the 5th respondent proved to be a better candidate than the petitioner in the interview board's assessment (including the 15-mark knowledge assessment out of 50), and the petitioner produced no materials showing malicious intention on the part of the respondents.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Under G.O.Ms.No.110, Social Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department dated 14.05.2012, where no eligible or suitable candidate is available in the same hamlet, candidates from the neighbouring village can be considered and the distance factor can be extended to a 10-kilometre radius in and around the neighbouring Panchayats; hence residence 7 kilometres away does not by itself vitiate the appointment.

¶44

Key takeaways

On the petitioner's apprehension of crossing the age limit at the next notification, it is open to the petitioner to request respondents 1 to 4 to consider age relaxation, or for the respondents themselves to take a policy decision on age relaxation where peculiar circumstances demand it.obiter¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anganwadi recruitment - appointment of 5th respondent as main Anganwadi worker in Punugunathapuram Anganwadi, Nagapattinam, challenged by a widow-category applicant who attended the interview - objection that 5th respondent resides 7 km away, beyond the 3-km residence criterion - Held, disposing the writ petition: under G.O.Ms.No.110, Social Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department dated 14.05.2012, where no eligible or suitable candidate is available in the same hamlet, candidates from the neighbouring village can be considered and the distance factor extended to a 10-km radius in and around neighbouring Panchayats; the comparative marks placed by the 4th respondent showed 15 of the total 50 marks were allotted to knowledge assessment and the interview board found the 5th respondent a fitter candidate; no material of malicious intention was produced; no illegality or irregularity in the appointment process. The petitioner's apprehension of crossing the age limit at the next notification was left to her to seek age relaxation from respondents 1 to 4 or to the respondents' policy discretion. No costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.

¶1

WP.No.19897 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P No.19897 of 2018 and

¶7

WMP.No.23339 of 2018

¶8

S.Kartheepa W/o. ASelvam ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The District Collector, Collectorate, Nagapattinam District.

¶11

The District Programme Officer, O/o. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project Office, District Collector Office, Nagapattinam.

¶12

The Deputy Director, O/o. The Child Development Project Officer, Behind Municipality, Nagapattinam.

¶13

The Child Development Project Officer, O/o. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Behind Municipality, Nagapattinam.

¶14

5Mrs.Sudha, W/o.Karthikeyan,

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

WP.No.19897 of 2018

¶18

West Street, Thiukannapuram & Post, Nagapattinam Taluk & District.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records relating to the appointment of the 5th respondent and quash the same as illegal and ultra vires and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner to the post of main Anganwadi worker in Punugunathapuram Anganwadi, Nagapattinam Taluk and District in the place of 5th respondent namely Mrs.

¶21

Sudha on the basis of the petitioners representation dated 11.01.2018. (PRAYER AMENDED VIDE ORDER DT 30.06.2023 MADE IN WMP.19030/2023 IN WP.19897/2018 BY PBBJ)

¶22

For Petitioner : Ms.G.Deepika for M/s.S.Giritharan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.T.Chezhian, AGP for RR1 to 4 : Mr.D.Murugan for R5.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed under a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

¶26

to call for the records relating to the appointment of the 5th respondent to the post of main Anganwadi worker and direct the 2^nd respondent to stop handing over any responsibility to the 5^th respondent relating to the post of main

¶27

2/8

¶28

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

¶29

WP.No.19897 of 2018

¶30

Anganwadi worker in Punugunathapuram Anganwadi, Nagapattinam Taluk and District.

¶31

2 .Heard, Ms.G.Deepika, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.Chezhian,

¶32

learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.D.Murugan, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

3 . The 1st respondent called for applications for the post of main Anganwadi worker, mini Anganwadi worker, and Anganwadi assistant in Punugunathapuram vide Notification No. 494 dated 28.07.2017. The education qualification prescribed for the said post is a pass in SSLC, and the age eligibility as on 01.07.2017 should be 25 years, and the applicant should reside within a 3- kilometer radius. The above post is to be given to the persons falling under the category of widows, locomotor disabled persons, and persons deserted by husbands. One of the preconditions is that no family member of the applicant should be in a government job. As the petitioner fell under the category of widow, she applied to the post of Anganwadi worker with the necessary certificates. She also attended the interview on 08.09.2017. However, she was not

¶34

3/8

¶35

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

¶36

WP.No.19897 of 2018

¶37

given any appointment order thereafter. She came to know that the said post was filled up by appointing the 5th respondent, who did not meet the eligibility criteria for the appointment to the said post. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is residing 7 kilometers away from Punugunathapuram , and that was not properly considered by respondents 1 to 4.

¶38

4. There is no quarrel on the point that there are certain essential requirements for the applicants to apply to the post of Mini Anganwadi Workers, Main Anganwadi Workers, and Anganwadi Helpers, as per the guidelines prescribed under Government Order G.O.Ms.No.110, Social Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department dated 14.05.2012. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the 5th respondent has been posted in the said place despite her residence is 7 kilometre away and it is in violation of the government guidelines.

¶39

5 . In the counter filed by the 4th respondent, the comparative statement of the marks given for both the petitioner and the 5th respondent under various heads during the selection process is shown. The interview panel has been given the task to assess the overall performance of the candidates, including their knowledge in the relevant field. The family situation of the applicant is also taken

¶40

4/8

¶41

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

¶42

WP.No.19897 of 2018

¶43

into consideration apart from the other essential aspects.

¶44

6. The government order in G.O.Ms.No.110, Social Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department dated 14.05.2012 would state that if no eligible or suitable candidates in the same hamlet are available, the candidates from the neighbouring village can also be taken into consideration for the appointment, and in such a case, the distance factor can be extended to a 10kilometer radius in and around the neighbouring Panchayats. But the petitioner appears to have made her own assessment without looking into the comparative assessment made by the interview board, and it proceeded to file this petition stating that the appointment of the 5th respondent is improper and irregular.

¶45

7 . Among the various aspects for which the total marks of 50 is fixed, it appears that 15 marks were allotted to the knowledge assessment. As the 5th respondent appears to have got better knowledge for the post in which she is required to be appointed. She was found to be a fit candidate, than the petitioner for the appointment. The petitioner did not produce any materials to show any malicious intention on the part of the respondents to choose the 5th respondent for the post. Records would show that the 5th respondent had proved to be a better candidate in the assessment of the interview board. Hence, I don't find any

¶46

5/8

¶47

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

¶48

WP.No.19897 of 2018

¶49

illegality or irregularity involved in the appointment process.

¶50

8. The petitioner's main concern is that when the next notification is given for such appointments, this petitioner would cross the age limit fixed for the post. In such a case, it is up to the petitioner to give a request to the respondents 1 to 4 to consider for age relaxation, or the respondents themselves can take some policy decision on the age relaxation, if there are some peculiar circumstances which demands the relaxation of age for the candidates who might apply to the post in the future.

¶51

In view of the above stated reason, this writ petition is disposed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶52

05.02.2025

¶53

Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non- Speaking Neutral: Yes/No jrs

¶54

6/8

¶55

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

¶56

WP.No.19897 of 2018

¶57

¶58

The District Collector, Collectorate, Nagapattinam District.

¶59

The District Programme Officer, O/o. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project Office, District Collector Office, Nagapattinam.

¶60

The Deputy Director, O/o. The Child Development Project Officer, Behind Municipality, Nagapattinam.

¶61

The Child Development Project Officer, O/o. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Behind Municipality, Nagapattinam.

¶62

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

¶63

7/8

¶64

WP.No.19897 of 2018

¶65

R.N.MANJULA, J. jrs

¶66

W.P No.19897 of 2018 and WMP.No.23339 of 2018

¶67

05.02.2025