Dhivya v. The District Collector

ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated

07.02.2019 with consequential relief to appoint the petitioner to the post of Village Panchayat Clerk in S.Kavanur village panchayat.

¶2Heard Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Thambi Durai, learned Government Advocate appearing for R-1 and R-2 and Mr.A.R.Kannappan, learned counsel appearing for R-3. Perused the material documents available on record.

¶3The petitioner has completed 12th Standard and registered herself in the Employment Exchange. The 2nd respondent has issued a notification, dated

27.03.2018 for direct recruitment to fill up the post of Village Panchayat Clerk, within Paramakudi Panchayat Union, including one vacancy in S.Kavanur. The said post was reserved for B.C. Community other than B.C. Muslims. Since the petitioner possessing the qualification, she has participated in the recruitment process. Totally, 20 candidates have applied for the said post. The selection committee had processed the application and shortlisted 5 candidates and called them for interview.

¶4The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner belongs to S.Kavanur village. According to the notification, the candidates should be a resident or within the border of the village. Since the petitioner is in Kavanur village and the 3rd respondent who belongs to Thenpudhuvakudi village panchayat, hence the 3rd respondent is not entitled to be appointed.

¶5Restricting the candidates based on place of residence is against the Article 14 and there are several judgments to the effect. Except this ground, the petitioner has not raised any ground.

¶6The respondents have submitted that in the recruitment process, they have followed reservation policy and also constituted a committee and 20 candidates were processed, subsequently, it was shortlisted for interview. After conducting interview for all the five candidates, the 3rd respondent was selected. The 3rd respondent has joined service and she is serving for the past four years.

¶7Since there is no perversity in the selection process, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶8Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No

06.04.2023 Internet : Yes

ksa To

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

2.The Block Development Officer, Paramakudi Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District. S.SRIMATHY, J ksa W.P.(MD)No. 15906 of 2019

06.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P(MD)No.12630 and 12632 of 2019 Dhivya ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Paramakudi Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District. 3.B.Shanmugapriya ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent dated 07.02.2019 in Na.Ka.b4/1152/2018 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of village panchayat clerk in S.Kavanur village panchayat. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondent : Mr.P.Thambi durai Government Advocate for R-1 and R-2 Mr.A.R.Kannappan for R-3