Dismissed

Tmt.P.Valliammal v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Mar 2025WP(MD)/13299/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judicial review of a selection committee's decision in writ jurisdiction is confined to mala fide or patent procedural irregularities; the writ court will not sit in appeal over the merits of selection. A candidate alleging non-grant of 4% reservation for differently abled persons and destitute-widow preference must substantiate such allegations; where the post was earmarked for general category and selection followed government guidelines on merit, no irregularity is made out.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tmt.P.Valliammal Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

P. Valliammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶11

The District Project Officer (In Charge), Integrated Child Development Scheme, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶12

V.Sivakami Kanagajothi ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus , calling for the records of the 1^st respondent under the proceeding No.A1/79/2019-49, dated 24.02.2019 and quash the same as void, illegal, unlawful and direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Anganwari Worker [mq;fd;thb gzpahsh;], Mudivathanendhal East, Tuticorin District, by considering her application dated 05.03.2019, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.M.Ponniah For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader, for R-1 & R-2 R-3 – No appearance

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Under assail is the Order, dated 01.02.2019 challenging the

¶20

appointment order issued in favour of the 3^rd respondent herein.

¶21

The case of the writ petitioner is that she belongs to

¶22

schedule caste and possessed 10^th standard qualification and also completed English Typewriting-Lower grade. She is a physically challenged person and a destitute women having two children. The 1^st respondent herein has issued a paper publication on 29.01.2019 for selection of aspirants to fill-up the vacancies for the post of Anganwadi worker [mq;fd;thb gzpahsh;] in the 2^nd respondent department. She submitted her application along with necessary documents and she has attended interview on 19.02.2019. As directed by the 2^nd respondent, she has produced all the documents of House tax receipt/Nativity certificate, Aadhar Card, Diploma certificate, Certificate of destitute women and certificate and identity card for physically challenged person and community certificate. However, the post of Anganwadi worker

¶23

2/8

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶26

[mq;fd;thb gzpahsh;] was given to the 3^rd respondent herein. The 3^rd respondent is not a qualified candidate than the petitioner, because of the fact that the respondents 1 & 2 did not follow the guidelines issued in the publication. The respondents 1 & 2 did not given adequate marks and preference to her by considering her disability and also being destitute women. Apart from that the reservation of 4% differently abled person has not been given. Hence, the writ petition.

¶27

The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that 4% reservation has not been given to the physically challenged person and priority is also has not been given to the petitioner since she is a destitute women.

¶28

To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the

¶29

Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2007

¶30

Supreme Court, 3136, in the case of Mahesh Gupta & Ors. Vs. V.Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and Others , to show that the State has

¶31

to adopt the policy decision for filling up the reserved posts for physically challenged persons. He would further submit that the petitioner is a qualified candidate than the 3^rd respondent and the

¶32

3/8

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶35

Selection committee has not followed the guidelines issued by the Government.

¶36

Per Contra, the Learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that, the post of Anganwadi worker [mq;fd;thb gzpahsh;], K.Pudur, Tuticorin District, has been reserved for general category. He would further submit that the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent were claimed the widow preference and the petitioner has studied 10^th standard aged about 35 years and residing 3 Km away from the Centre, whereas the 3^rd respondent is a widow aged about 38 years and studied +2 residing 1 Km away from the Centre. He would further submit that, since the post of Anganwadi worker [mq;fd;thb Copah;] has been reserved for general category based on merits and other guidelines issued by the Government selection was made, there is no perversity in the appointment order issued to the 3^rd respondent.

¶37

This Court has considered the submission made on either

¶38

side and perused the available records and counter filed by the respondents 1 & 2.

¶39

4/8

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶42

It is seen from the typed set of papers that the writ

¶43

petitioner is belonging to schedule caste, she possessed 10^th standard qualification and also completed Typewriting-English Lower Grade. Further, she is a physically challenged person and destitute widow having two children. The 3^rd respondent belongs to Backward class and she possessed Diploma in Nursing. The writ petitioner is residing 3 Km away from the Centre and the 3^rd respondent is residing 1 Km away from the Centre.

¶44

It is seen from the records that the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are claiming priority under destitute women category. The post of Anganwadi worker at K.Pudur, has been earmarked for General category. The Selection committee has selected the 3^rd respondent in the said post.

¶45

It is pertinent to mention that the individual can challenge

¶46

the selection process on the grounds of mala fide or other patent irregularities committed in the selection process. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the judicial review of an administrative action will be justified in case of mala fide or procedural irregularities. By and

¶47

5/8

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶50

large, it is not the function of a Court of law sitting in writ jurisdiction to convert itself into a Court of appeal over the decisions of the selection committee. In the instant case on hand, it is not explained to the satisfaction of this Court by the petitioner to substantiate the allegations on the selection of the 3^rd respondent. There is no merit in this Writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶51

Accordingly, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No

¶52

Costs.

¶53

NCC : Yes / No 10.03.2025 Index : Yes / No KSA

¶54

6/8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶57

¶58

The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶59

The District Project Officer (In Charge), Integrated Child Development Scheme, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.

¶60

7/8

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶63

M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶64

KSA

¶65

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.13299 of 2019

¶66

10.03.2025

¶67

8/8

¶68

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

Tmt.P.Valliammal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tmt.P.Valliammal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.S.Nargis Banu Vs Mr.J.Maboob Sheriff

K.Manimaran Vs M.Arunadevi

The Branch Manager, Vs Shanmuga Rajesh

S.Ganesan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Murugadoss Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

P.Murugeshkani Vs the District Collector