Madras High Court
The District Collector vs M.Rajeswari on 29 April, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.510 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.510 of 2019
and C.M.P.(MD)No.4361 of 2019
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Personal Assistant to District
Collector,
(Noon Meal Projects),
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Virudhunagar Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar District. ...Appellants
-Vs-
1.M.Rajeswari
2.The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Pattamputhur Village,
Virudhunagar Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar District.
3.R.Jegadeswari
(R3 is suo-motu impleaded as per order
dated 27.04.2019 in W.A.No.510/2019) ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD) No.510 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 23.01.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.14188 of 2012.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam,
Addl. Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.M.Jothibasu of R1
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,]
This Appeal by the District Collector, Virudhunagr District and
two others is directed against the order dated 23.01.2019 in W.P.
(MD)No.14188 of 2012.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein
challenging her non-selection to the post of Cook in the Noon Meal
Centre, attached to the Government High School, Pattamputhur,
Virudhunagar Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District. The Writ
Petition was allowed by the impugned order on the ground that the
records were manipulated and the name of Mrs.R.Jegadheeswari, who is
the third respondent herein, was interpreted. Subsequently, the files were
called for by the Court and it was reported to be not traceable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.510 of 2019
3. The learned Writ Court, after elaborately considering the factual
details, was fully convinced that non-selection of the first respondent was
vitiated by malafides and fraudulent practices. Therefore, the writ
petition was allowed.
4. To be noted, the writ petition was filed in the year 2012, but by
then, the third respondent was selected and she had also joined duty. The
first respondent/writ petitioner was not allowed to join. Writ Petition
was ultimately allowed on 23.01.2019. Though we fully subscribe to the
ultimate conclusion arrived by the learned Single Judge stating that the
non-selection was vitiated by malafides and other fraudulent practices,
we are not agreeable to the ultimate relief granted by the learned Writ
Court, by directing that the first respondent/writ petitioner should be
permitted to join and she should be paid all back wages and attendant
benefits. Admittedly, no order of appointment was issued to the first
respondent/ writ petitioner and consequently, the question of her being
treated as an employee does not arise. The fundamental legal principle is
that even if the name is found in the selection list that will not confer any
right to appointment on such a candidate. Therefore, we have to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.510 of 2019
necessarily set aside and modify that portion of the order passed by the
learned single Judge.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is partly allowed and the finding
of the learned single Judge for non selection of the first respondent/writ
petitioner is upheld. However, the consequential direction granted to
allow her to join duty and to receive back wages is set aside. One more
reason for coming to such a conclusion is that, the selection process was
conducted somewhere in 2012 and as on date, the first respondent cannot
be accommodated in such a post, as it is not clear whether there is any
vacancy or not. Furthermore, the third respondent had already joined
duty in the year 2012 and she is still continue. Therefore, the best that
can be done is to direct the appellants to permit the first respondent/writ
petitioner to apply for being appointed as Cook in any one of the Noon
Meal Centre in the District/area. But such an application is filed, the
same shall be considered in accordance with the scheme without
rejecting the application on the ground of age of the first respondent/writ
petitioner. It is made clear that the direction issued by the learned Single
Judge directing that the respondent/writ Petitioner should be permitted to
join duty and also be paid back wages is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.510 of 2019
6. With the above observation, this Writ Appeal is partly allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S. J.,] [S.A.I. J.,]
29.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
vsm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Headmaster,
Government High School,
Pattamputhur Village,
Virudhunagar Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.510 of 2019
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,
and
S.ANANTHI, J.,
vsm
W.A.(MD)No.510 of 2019
and C.M.P.(MD)No.4361 of 2019
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
