The District Collector v. Sivagnanam

J U D G M E N T [Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.] This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order dated

20.09.2019 in W.P.No.25588 of 2008, whereby the writ court had set aside the appointment order issued in favour of the second respondent as Assistant Cook and directed the appellants to consider the application submitted by the first respondent / writ petitioner to the post of Assistant Cook.

¶2The second respondent herein was selected and appointed as Assistant Cook pursuant to the notification issued by the first appellant for appointment to the post of Assistant Cook in Panchayat Union Primary School at Nathankaduvetti, Mogaiyur Panchayat Union. The first respondent had applied to the post under the category of widow and also attended the interview on 02.03.2007. Even though the first respondent, being a widow, was entitled to a preference in the selection in terms of the notification issued, the second appellant, by the impugned order dated

29.07.2008, has appointed the second respondent as Assistant Cook. Challenging the orders issued appointing the second respondent, the first respondent preferred the writ petition.

¶3The learned Judge, by holding that the writ petitioner was entitled to have preferential treatment in the category of widow in view of the notification / advertisement issued by the first appellant / District Collector, the appointment order issued in favour of the second respondent, who is not a widow, is against the notification issued. The learned Judge further found that the first respondent, even though she is a widow, is not facing indigent circumstances, cannot be a reason as the notification does not require such a situation and thereby allowed the writ petition.

¶4Assailing the impugned order passed in the Writ Petition, the official respondents had preferred the above Writ Appeal.

¶5Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that, the appellants have gone by the guidelines and relevant rules that are in force and that are to be followed for appointment to the post of Assistant Cook and thereby, since the second respondent alone possessed the necessary qualifications, she has been appointed and posted as the Assistant Cook. It is his further contention that the interview was also conducted and widow is not only the main criteria for selection but the IQ and mental ability of the candidates for the post of Assistant Cook were tested and therefore, it is not only the preference but the competence was also the criteria for selection.

¶6It is the further contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that, only pursuant to the recommendation of the committee, the appointment order was issued in favour of the second respondent as she was fully qualified for the post of Assistant Cook and therefore, the impugned order of the learned Judge in setting aside the selection and appointment of the second respondent on the ground that the first respondent ought to have been considered, since she being a widow is unsustainable and sought for indulgence of this Court.

¶7Per contra, Mr.R.Prem Narayan, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that, the appellants can proceed with the selection strictly only in terms of the notification / advertisement issued and they cannot add or substitute any additional parameters, which is not found part in the advertisement issued. It is his further contention that among all the candidates applied, the first respondent alone was the widow and in any event, more particularly the second respondent, who was selected admittedly, is not a widow and therefore not entitled to the preference. He contended that only taking note of all these aspects, the learned Judge had allowed the writ petition, which is perfectly in order and needs no interference and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶8Heard the submissions of the respective counsels and perused the materials on record.

¶9The Government is selecting and appointing the candidates for the post of Cooks and Assistant Cooks in the Noon Meal Centres constituted under the Puratchi Thalaivar M.G.R. Noon Meal Scheme Centres and Integrated Child Development Project. Further, apart from the post of Cooks and Assistant Cooks, Noon Meal Organisers, Assistants, Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi Assistants are also recruited and appointed. In this regard, the Government has issued G.O.(SO).No.4, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme (Sa.Vu Thi2) Department, dated

05.01.2007, for filling up of the vacancies existing at the Noon Meal Centres as mentioned in Annexure-I to the Government Order. The selections are to be made in view of the prevailing orders and the guidelines given pertaining to the educational qualification, age limit, reservation mode, distance from the centres and other criteria. As per Annexure-I to the Government Order, in Villupuram District, 179 vacancies were available for the post of Noon Meal Cooks.

¶10To fill up the vacancies, the first appellant issued an advertisement on 03.03.2007 in the local newspaper calling for the applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Cook in Panchayat Union Primary School at Nathankaduvetti, Mogaiyur Panchayat Union, along with other posts in the other Panchayat Unions. The qualifications and the preferential criteria to be adopted in the selection have been set out in the notification, which reads as follows:- W.A.No.10c9oofo2021 "rikayh; kw;Wk; rikay; cjtpahsh; gzpaplk; fyt; p jFjp vGjg;gof;f bjhpe;jpUff; ntzL; k; taJ 25 taJ Kjy; 40 taJ tiu (01/03/2007 md;iwa njjpapy); . bgzf; s; kl;Lk;/ *omikg;ghsh;. rikayh; kw;Wk; rikay; cjtpahsh; gzpapl';fSf;F fhypahf css; rj;Jzt[ ikaj;jpy; ,Uj;J 10 fp/kPl;lh; Rww; stpw;Fs; trpf;Fk; bgz;fs; klL; nk tpzz; g;gpf;f jFjpa[ilathf; s;/ * o,thf; spy; fhypg;gzpaplk; css; mnj Ff;fpuhkj;jpy; trpf;Fk; jFjpahd bgz;fs; Kjypy; ghprPypff; gg; Lth;/ * omnj Ff;fpuhkj;jpy; jFjpahd egh;fs; fpilff; hj glr; j;jpu; mnj fpuhk Cuhlr; pilar; nrh;j;j mUfhikapYss; gpw Ff;fpuhk'f; spy; ,Ue;J jFjpahd egh;fs; njht; pw;F ghprPyid bra;ag;gLth;/ *ojFjpahd egh;fs; fpilf;fhj glr; j;jpy; me;j Cuhlr; pia Xlo; as[ s; 10 fp/kPll; UfF; kpfhky; css; Cuhlr; pfspy; ,UeJ; jFjpahd egh;fs; njh;tpw;F ghprPyid bra;ag;gLk;/ * otpjit kw;Wk; fztdhy; iftplg;gl;lth;fSf;F Kd;D}pik mspf;fg;gLk;/ mikg;ghsh; gjtpf;F ,d Xjf;fPL Kiw gpdg; w;wgg; Lk;/ * oepakdk; bjhlh;ghf ahhplKk; gzk; bfhLjJ; Vkhw ntz;lhk; vdW; Mlr; pah; gpun$e;jpu et;ePj; nflL; bfhzL; ss; hh;/ * onkYk; tptu'f; is me;je;j xdw; pa mYtyf';fspy; bjhpe;J bfhss; yhk;/ ,tt; hW me;j braj; p Fwpg;gpy; Twg;glL; ss; J/"o

¶11As this was a paper publication, a specific query was posed to the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in respect of the notification issued and he has confirmed that the publication dated

03.03.2007 in the local newspaper is the recruitment notification issued calling for recruitment to the post of Assistant Cooks. Further, as per G.O.(SO).No.4, dated 05.01.2007, the appellants were permitted to fill up the posts by following the guidelines as set out earlier. As such the appellants were directed to file all the earlier orders, by which the criteria for selection of the candidates were prescribed.

¶12The earlier orders issued and filed before this Court, particularly G.O.(Ms.)No.203, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme (Sa.Vu.Thi7) Department, dated 19.08.2005, only prescribes the following criteria to be followed in respect of the recruitment to the post of Assistant Cooks. Para 6 of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:- "6. Cuf tsh;r;rp ,af;Feh; kw;Wk; jpl;l xU';fpizg;ghsh;. cyf t';fp cjtp bgWk; xU';fize;j FHe;ijfs; tsh;r;rpg; gzpfs; 3tJ jpl;lk; fUj;Jf;fis muR ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;J mjd; go nkny gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy; btspaplg;gl;l Mizfspd; go fhypg;gzpapl';fSf;F epakdk; bra;ag;gLk; nghJ ikaj;jpypUe;J J}u Rw;wst[ filg;gpog;gJ gpd; tUkhW bjspt[iufs; tH';fg;gLfpd;wd/ m) ve;j rj;Jzt[ kw;Wk; m';fd;tho ika';fspy; fhyp gzpaplk; mnj Ff;fpuhkj;jpy; (Hamlets) trpf;Fk; jFjpahd gzp epakdk; bra;a ntz;Lk;/ M) jFjpahd egh;fs; fpilf;fhj gl;fj;jpy; mnj fpuhk Cuhl;rpiar; (panchayat) nrh;e;j mUfhikapYs;s gpw Ff;fpuhk';fpypUe;J (Hamlets) jFjpahd egh;fis njh;t[ bra;a ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW jFjpahd egh;fs; fpilf;fhj gl;rj;jpy; mt;t{uhl;rp xl;o 10 fp/kPf;F kpfhky; cs;s Cuhl;rpfspypUe;J jFjpahd egh; njh;t[ bra;a ntz;Lk;/ ,) efuhl;rp / khefuhl;rpiag; bghUj;jkl;oy; fhypg;gzpaplk; cs;s mnj thh;oy; jFjpahd egh;fisf; bfhz;Lk; mt;thwhf fpilf;fhj gl;oj;jpy; mUfhikapYs;s thh;oy; ,Ue;Jk; mt;thwhf ,y;iybadpy; me;jf; nfhl;lj;jpypUe;J njh;t[ bra;a ntz;Lk;."

¶13As there are no other guidelines or rules except the criteria that have been mentioned above, the conditions that are mentioned and notified in the recruitment notification / publication alone can be considered for the purpose of selection to the post of Assistant Cook in the Mogaiyur Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.

¶14On the perusal of the notification, it specifically gives a preference to the widows and the destitute women in selection and appointment to the post of Cook and Assistant Cook.

¶15It is not in dispute that the certificates filed by the first respondent show that she is a widow and further from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent before the writ court, she has not asserted that she is either a widow or a destitute woman. On the contrary, it was only the stand of the second respondent that the first respondent herein though is a widow, she is not in an indigent circumstance and therefore, she is not entitled to the preferential treatment in selection. It could be seen that the appellants have not filed any counter affidavit before the writ court and the second respondent has also not preferred any appeal as against the impugned order in the writ petition.

¶16Admittedly, as per the recruitment notification issued by the first appellant, preference will be given to the widows and there is no condition that the widow must be in an indigent condition and more particularly, when the second respondent was admittedly not a widow or destitute woman, she is not entitled to the preferential treatment and therefore the selection of the second respondent to the post of Assistant Cook, ignoring the application of the first respondent, is against the very notification issued by the first appellant.

¶17The arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants that the preference alone cannot be a basis and the committee had tested the other parameters, particularly the ability to be appointed to the posts, cannot be sustained as the second respondent, who is admittedly not eligible to have preferential treatment, has been selected by ignoring giving preference to the application of the first respondent. In fact, even the learned Judge while setting aside the selection made in favour of the second respondent, had directed the appellants to consider the application of the first respondent for the post of Assistant Cook only in case no other widow or destitute widow had appeared in the interview and if any of them had appeared, then it is for the second appellant to select the most suitable candidate for the post of Assistant Cook from among them.

¶18The order of the learned Judge is completely based on the very recruitment notification issued by the first appellant and also the direction has been given to the appellants to consider all the other applications, who are entitled to the preference along with the first respondent and thereafter appoint the suitable candidate, which is perfectly justified, we see no error or infirmity in the order of the learned Judge, which requires interference.

¶19In view of the same, the order of the learned Judge is sustained and accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [A.S.M.J.,] [G.A.M.J.,]

24.10.2024 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No : Yes / No sri Copy to:

1.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

2.The Personal Assistant to the District Collector (Nutrition), Office of the District Collector, Villupuram.

3.The Commissioner, Mugaiyur Panchayat Union, @ Manampoondi, Villupuram District. Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,

J. AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J. sri and C.M.P.No.6902 of 2021

24.10.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 03.10.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 24.10.2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and C.M.P.No.6902 of 2021 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2.The Personal Assistant to the District Collector (Nutrition), Office of the District Collector, Villupuram. 3.The Commissioner, Mugaiyur Panchayat Union, @ Manampoondi, Villupuram District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 to 3 versus 1.Sivagnanam ... Respondent / Petitioner 2.Sumathi ... Respondent / 4th Respondent PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.09.2019 in W.P.No.25588 of 2008. For Appellants : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Prem Narayan