M.Keerthana v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P.(MD)Nos.24135 & 26587 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)Nos. 20726, 20727, 20729, 22942, 22944 of 2019 & 4832, 1521 of 2020 M.Keerthana ... Petitioner in

W.P.(MD)No.24135 of 2019 G.Anitha

... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.26587 of 2019 Vs.

¶1The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶2The Assistant Director, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶3The Block Development Officer/Special Officer for T.Velankulam Panchayat, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District.

¶4V.Vairavamoorthy ... Respondents in both the Petitions PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.24135 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent herein in his proceedings No.83/718/2018, dated 07.11.2019 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner in the post of Village Panchayat Secretary, T.Velankulam Village, Tiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District. PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.26587 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order Ref.Na.Ka.No.P 3/718/2018, dated 07.11.2019 on the file of the 3rd respondent relating to the appointment order of 4th respondent and quash the same illegal and consequently direct the 3rd and 2nd respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner to the post of T.Velangulam Village Panchayat Secretary in the 3rd respondent's Village Panchayat. In W.P.(MD)No.24135 of 2019 For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R-3 : No appearance For R-4 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, for M/s.Ajmal Associates In W.P.(MD)No. 26587 of 2019 For Petitioner : No appearance For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R-3 : No appearance For R-4 : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran, for M/s.Ajmal Associates

COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are similar in nature both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2(i). W.P.(MD)No.26587 of 2019 has been filed for Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order, dated 07.11.2019, with a consequential direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as Village Panchayat Secretary in the 3rd respondent's Village Panchayat. 2(ii). Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus has been filed for Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 07.11.2019 relating to the appointment order of 4th respondent and consequently direct the 3rd and 2nd respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner to the post of T.Velangulam Village Panchayat Secretary in the 3rd respondent's Village Panchayat

¶3The 4th respondent namely V.Vairavamoorthy was selected in the selection process and he was issued an appointment order and he was serving in the said post. But the allegation against the 4th respondent is that he has produced false certificates in order to secure his appointment. At this stage this issue cannot be gone into, since at the time of hearing this writ petition, it was submitted by the parties that the 4th respondent committed suicide and died.

¶4The 1st respondent has filed counter stating that the said post was reserved for 'Backward community other than Muslim community'. The petitioner G.Anitha, belongs to Most Backward Community (Maravar), therefore, the said G.Anitha is not entitled to be considered. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion since the post was allotted to the Back Ward community, the petitioner belongs to Most Backward Community, the writ petition filed in W.P.

(MD)No.26587 of 2019 by G.Anitha is liable to be dismissed.

¶5The W.P.(MD)No.24135 of 2019 has been filed by M.Keerthana, challenging the same appointment granted to the said V.Vairavamoorthy.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that for the said post 32 candidates have applied. After conducting interview, the respondents have short listed 6 candidates. The list of candidates is extracted here under: t. vz; fpuk Cuhl;rpapd; ngah; xJf;fg;gl;l ,d Row;rp tpz;zg;gjhuhpd; ngah; kw;Wk; Kfthp

¶3b.Ntyhq;Fsk; gpw;gLj;jg;gl;Nlhh-; (K];yPk; jtpu) K.tpNdhj;Fkhh; j-ng.Kdp];tud; 1-179 eLj;njU b.Ntyhq;Fsk; 8870256913 b.Ntyhq;Fsk; gpw;gLj;jg;gl;Nlhh-; (K];yPk; jtpu) nr.ma;adhh; j-ng.NrJuhkd; 2-81 C.b.Ntyhq;Fsk; 9600720527 b.Ntyhq;Fsk; gpw;gLj;jg;gl;Nlhh-; (K];yPk; jtpu) K.fPh;j;jdh j-ng.Kdp];tud; 1-172> eLj;njU b.Ntyhq;Fsk; 9442120590 b.Ntyhq;Fsk; gpw;gLj;jg;gl;Nlhh-; (K];yPk; jtpu) m.<];tud; j-ng.ma;adhh; 2-23> ma;ak;Ngl;il b.Ntyhq;Fsk; 7094958596

¶7The contention of the petitioner, M.Keerthana is that the said V.Vairavamoorthy produced fake and false documents, moreover he died. Hence the other candidates in the "short listed candidates" are entitled to be considered. The petitioner further submitted that the official respondents have not followed the rules of reservation. The petitioner is 100% physically disabled women and based on the rules of reservation, the petitioner ought to be considered for appointment under disabled women category.

¶8The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the selection process. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Sarojakumari Vs. R.Helen Thilakom and Others, reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1095. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case, the writ petitioners and other five persons cannot be stated as unsuccessful candidates and they were selected and are in the "short listed candidates". The said V.Vairavamoorthy was selected based on the available records, but the records seems to be fake. Moreover, the respondents have not followed the rules of reservation especially the rules of priority. The petitioner being 100% disabled person will come under the prior category cannot be termed as unsuccessful candidate. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case.

¶9Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents ought to have consider the other five candidates by following the rules of reservation, including the rules of priority under disability etc. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the merits of the said five candidates, by strictly following the rules of reservation including priority category and issue an appointment order to the candidate who would be selected in the said process. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶10At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that the deceased V.Vairavamoorthy was appointed and served in the said post, because of this litigation the said V.Vairavamoorthy did not get any salary for the period he was served. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion the appointment order issued to the deceased V.Vairavamoorthy need not be cancelled to the extent of granting salary benefits for the legal heirs. The respondents are directed to disburse the salary to the legal heirs of the deceased V.Vairavamoorthy, after ascertaining the fact of the legal heirs of the deceased V.Vairavamoorthy, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶11Accordingly, the writ petition filed in W.P.(MD)No.26587 of 2019 by G.Anitha is dismissed. The writ petition filed in W.P.(MD)No.24135 of 2019 by M.Keerthana is disposed of with aforesaid directions. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Index : Yes / No

08.06.2023 Internet : Yes

ksa To

¶1The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶2The Assistant Director, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶3The Block Development Officer/Special Officer for T.Velankulam Panchayat, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Thiruppuvanam, Sivagangai District. W.P.(MD)Nos.o24135o&o26587oofo2019 oooo S.SRIMATHY,oJ ksa CommonoOrderomadeoin W.P.(MD)Nos.24135o&o26587oofo2019 o08.06.2023