Tmt. D.Samudram, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Tmt. D.Samudram, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner had raised any legally sustainable grounds against the appointment of the 4th respondent (Samudrakani) to the Vadakku Kuppanapuram Anganwadi Udaviyalar Post, her objections being limited to the comparative number of children (three versus four) and relative proximity to the centre.

Court's answer

Because the writ petition was filed only in 2017 while the 4th respondent had already been working in the post for the past eight years, due to efflux of time the appointment of the 4th respondent cannot be disturbed.

Ratio / Principle

The two grounds urged by the petitioner — having three children as against the 4th respondent's four, and residing nearer to the centre than the 4th respondent who lives six kilometres away — are not convincing.

Key takeaways

After hearing rival submissions, the petitioner has not raised any legally sustainable grounds, and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), Justice S. Srimathy, 24.04.2025 — W.P.(MD)No.17259 of 2017 (with W.M.P.(MD)Nos.13810 & 13811 of 2017, closed): Dismissal, no costs. The writ petition under Article 226 sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an undated order (Na.Ka.Nil, dated Nil) concerning appointment of the 4th respondent, Samudrakani, to the Vadakku Kuppanapuram Anganwadi Udaviyalar Post. Holdings: (i) since the writ petition was filed in 2017 while the appointee had already worked about eight years, due to efflux of time the appointment could not be disturbed; (ii) the petitioner's only allegations — three children against the appointee's four, and nearer residence to the centre — were 'not convincing'; (iii) after hearing rival submissions the petitioner had raised no legally sustainable grounds. The Court merely recorded the 4th respondent's submitted contention (supported by the official respondents' counter affidavit) that she alone had produced a Tahsildar certificate proving her economic status; this recorded submission was not itself adjudicated.

W.P.(MD).No.17259 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 24.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

W.P.(MD).No.17259 of 2017 and

W.M.P.(MD)No.13810 and 13811 of 2017

D.Samudram ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The District Integrated Child, Development Project Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The Child Development Project Officer, Watrap Block, Virudhunagar District.

4.Samudrakani.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the respondents 1 to 3 relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.Nil, dated Nil, regarding Vadakku Kuppanapuram Anganwadi Udaviyalar Post and to quash the order.

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

1/4

W.P.(MD).No.17259 of 2017

For Petitioner	: Mr.V.Kalyanasundaram
For R1 to R3	: Mr.A.Kannan
	Additional Government Pleader
For R4	: No appearance *****

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.Nil dated Nil, regarding the appointment of the 4^th respondent in Vadakku Kuppanapuram Anganwadi Udaviyalar Post.

The writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of 4^th respondent and is working for the past 8 years. The writ petition is filed in the year 2017, due to efflux of time, the appointment of the 4^th respondent cannot be disturbed. Further, the only allegation is that the petitioner is having three children whereas the 4^th respondent is having four children. The petitioner is nearby the center and the 4^th respondent is six kilometers away from the center. However, these two reasons are not convincing.

The contention of the 4^th respondent is that the 4^th respondent had

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

2/4

W.P.(MD).No.17259 of 2017

produced Tahsildar certificate to prove her economic status whereas the petitioner has not produced any document, which would be evident from the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents. The said submission is recorded.

After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the petitioner has not raised any legally sustainable grounds. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

24.04.2025

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

Tmg

To

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The District Integrated Child, Development Project Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The Child Development Project Officer, Watrap Block, Virudhunagar District.

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

3/4

W.P.(MD).No.17259 of 2017

S.SRIMATHY, J.

Tmg

W.P.(MD).No.17259 of 2017

24.04.2025

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

4/4