Rajapradha M Vs The District Collector

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to cancel the appointment order issued in favour of the 3rd respondent to the post of Village Assistant in Vellur Siruvarai Revenue Village, Manamelkudi Village, Pudhukottai District, consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant in Vellur Siruvarai Revenue Village, Manamelkudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

¶15

1/6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.3920 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.Panneer Selvam.V For R1 & R2 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For R3 : No appearance

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner / a candidate, who has appeared for the

¶21

post of Village Assistant in Vellur Siruvarai Revenue Village has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to cancel the appointment order issued in favour of the third respondent,who was selected as the Village Assistant in Vellur Siruvarai Revenue Village.

¶22

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for the post of Village Assistant as per Notification, dated 11.10.2022, issued by the respondents, wherein, it was notified that there are three vacancies in Vellur Siruvarai under General Turn, Alaganvayal under SC category and Thalikottai under ST category. Though the third respondent belongs to Thanjavur District, she has been selected as a Village Assistant of Vellur Siruvarai Revenue Village, by violating the

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.3920 of 2023

¶26

norms prescribed in the Notification. According to the petitioner, there was no transparency in the selection process. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has given a justification that when the petitioner is not in a position to get the details about the manner in which, the appointment of the third respondent was made, the third respondent, who was selected as the Village Assistant was capable of getting all the details including the marks secured by all the candidates and it has been filed by way of a typed set of papers before this Court. According to the learned counsel, it is not known how these documents could have been accessed by the third respondent, when this petitioner is not able to do so.

¶27

3.The second respondent as well as the third respondent have already filed their counter affidavits denying the averments made by the petitioner that the third respondent is also the native of Manamelkudi Village, Pudukkottai. The mark statement of all the candidates, who have participated in the selection process is also filled by way of typed set of papers by the third respondent, which

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.3920 of 2023

¶31

reveals that the petitioner has secured 79 marks and the third respondent has secured 82 marks.

¶32

4.The petitioner without challenging the order of

¶33

appointment issued in favour of the third respondent and without even taking any steps to get the particulars through Right to Information Act, has simply filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to cancel appointment order. On this ground alone, this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶34

5.Considering the above materials placed by the

¶35

respondents, this Court is of the view that this petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

03.12.2025

¶37

NCC: Yes/No Index:Yes/No vrn

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.3920 of 2023

¶41

To