Dismissed¶35

S.Shanmuga Priya, v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Feb 2025WP(MD)/20090/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (S.Srimathy, J., 04.02.2025) - W.P.(MD).No.20090 of 2017 - Noon Meal Organizer appointment - Pudukkottai - age-based challenge dismissed - overqualification (B.A. vs prescribed +2) disqualifies participation - MBC (non priority) reservation - G.O.Ms.No.163 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 18.08.2010 - discretion to select lowest strata candidates - Certiorarified Mandamus - Article 226.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality in the appointment of the 4th respondent as Noon Meal Organizer. ¶29

S.Shanmuga Priya, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order appointing the 4th respondent as Noon Meal Organizer is liable to be quashed on the petitioner's contention that, being older (34 years against the 4th respondent's 26 years), she was more eligible for the post. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Candidates with higher qualifications cannot participate in the recruitment process for Noon Meal Organizer, since the post is meant for persons having less educational qualification (the petitioner is a B.A. graduate while the prescribed qualification is only +2).

¶29

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality in the appointment of the 4th respondent as Noon Meal Organizer.

¶29

Key takeaways

Under G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010, Noon Meal Organizer and Anganvaadi posts are granted to deserving candidates in the lowest strata of society, and the official respondents have discretionary power to select such candidates.ratio¶29
The petitioner's contention that she is over-aged and will lose her opportunity to be appointed as Noon Meal Organizer has no legal basis.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Certiorarified Mandamus) under Article 226 challenging the District Collector's order dated 16.10.2017 appointing the 4th respondent as Noon Meal Organizer, on the sole ground that the petitioner (34 years) was older and hence more eligible than the 4th respondent (26 years). Held, dismissing the petition: the appointment suffered from no illegality. The post was reserved for MBC (non priority); 25 applications were received, 9 rejected and call letters issued to 16 candidates, with appointment made on interview. Though the petitioner is a B.A. graduate while the 4th respondent holds only +2 (the prescribed qualification), candidates with higher qualifications cannot participate in the recruitment since the post is meant for persons with less educational qualification. Per G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010, Noon Meal Organizer and Anganvaadi posts are for deserving candidates in the lowest strata of society, and the official respondents enjoy discretionary power to select such candidates. The petitioner's over-age contention was held to have no legal basis. No costs; connected miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16378 and 16379 of 2017) closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.20090 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.20090 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16378 and 16379 of 2017

S.Shanmuga Priya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶12

2.The Personal Assistant to District Collector,

¶13

Noon Meal Scheme, Office of the District Collector, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

¶14

3.The Commissioner, Kundrandar Kovil Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District.

¶15

4.A.Durga Devi ... Respondents

¶16

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 relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent, dated 16.10.2017, appointing the 4^th respondent herein as Noon Meal Organizer and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner for appointment of Noon Meal Organizer.

¶17

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

¶18

1/6

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.20090 of 2017

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Govardhanan For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader For R3 : No appearance For R4 : Mr.M.Rajarajan *****

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of the 1^st respondent, dated 16.10.2017, appointing the 4^th respondent herein as Noon Meal Organizer and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner for appointment of Noon Meal Organizer.

¶23

Through the impugned order, the 4^th respondent was appointed as Noon Meal Organizer. The only contention that was canvassed by the petitioner is regarding age. The writ petitioner is 34 years old and the 4^th respondent is 26 years old. The 4^th respondent is much younger than the petitioner, hence the petitioner is eligible than the 4^th respondent, hence Noon Meal Organizer post ought to be granted to the writ petitioner. Further the 4^th respondent is on the verge of attaining the maximum age, hence this is the last opportunity to get the government posts.

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.20090 of 2017

¶27

The respondents 1 to 3 have filed counter affidavit stating that the post is

¶28

reserved for MBC (non priority), 25 applications were received, wherein 9 applications were rejected, call letters were sent to 16 candidates. Based on the interview, the 4^th respondent was appointed as Noon Meal Organizer.

¶29

After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the appointment of the 4^th respondent. Further it was brought to the knowledge of this Court that the writ petitioner is a B.A., graduate whereas the 4^th respondent has +2 qualification. The qualification for the Noon Meal Organizer is only +2. Therefore, candidates with higher qualifications cannot participate in the recruitment process, since the post is meant for persons who are having less educational qualification. Based on G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010, Noon Meal Organizer and Anganvaadi posts are granted only to the persons who are deserving candidates and are in the lowest strata in the society. Therefore, the official respondents are having discretionary power to select such candidates who are in the lowest strata of the society.

¶30

Further, the only contention by the petitioner is that she is over aged and

¶31

she will lose her opportunities to be appointed as Noon Meal Organizer, hence

¶32

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

¶33

3/6

¶34

W.P.(MD).No.20090 of 2017

¶35

prayed for an opportunity. The said contention has no legal basis. Therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

04.02.2025

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

4/6

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.20090 of 2017

¶41

¶42