Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Hindu Middle School on 7 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.889 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.889 of 2018
and C.M.P.(MD) No.5673 of 2018
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Commissioner,
Kilapavur Panchayat Union,
Tenkasi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
Hindu Middle School,
Rep. by its Secretary,
S.Neelambiga,
Kilapavur Union,
Tenkasi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.89 of 2010, dated 10.12.2013.
For Appellants : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.889 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
This Writ Appeal by the State is directed against the order dated
10.12.2013, made in W.P.(MD) No.89 of 2010, by which, the Writ Petition was
allowed.
2.Similar Writ Petitions were filed in W.P.(MD) No.7981 of 2012 etc.,
batch and by a common order dated 17.10.2012, the said Writ Petitions were
allowed. Writ Appeals were filed against the said order by the Government and
one such appeal is Writ Appeal (MD) No.858 of 2012 and the said Writ Appeal
was allowed by a common judgment dated 21.08.2013, by the Division Bench
of this Court. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“86. In the light of the decisions and
discussion, we hardly find any irrationality,
arbitrariness or unreasonableness, behind the above
stipulation made in G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated
06.01.2011. According to us, there is basis for
classification, reasonableness and clear nexus,
between the classification and the object sought to be
achieved. Legislature or the Government has a wide
discretion in making the classification and the
impugned G.O., does not reflect hostile discrimination
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.889 of 2018
against a class of persons. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.4,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme
Department, dated 06.01.2011, imposing different
procedure for appointment in the Nutritious Meal
Centre of Government Aided Minority School and
Nutritious Meal Centre of Government Aided Non-
Minority School is not hit by Articles 14 or 16 of the
Constitution of India.
87. Therefore, we are of the considered view
that the writ Court has not considered the issue in its
right perspective, and it has committed an error in law
by quashing G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated
06.01.2011.
88. In view of our above decision, the
validity of the said criteria i.e. imposing different
procedure for appointment for Government Aided
Minority School and Government Aided Non-
Minority School vide G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare
and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated
06.01.2011 is upheld.
89. In view of our above conclusions,
to 855 of 2012, 924 to 933 of 2012, 62 of 2013 and 63
of 2013 filed by the State are ALLOWED and the
common order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.
(MD)Nos.4451 of 2012 etc., batch, dated 01.10.2012,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.889 of 2018
is set aside.
(ii) Writ Appeal (MD) No.841 of 2012 is
filed by one M.Meenalakshmi, challenging the
common order of the Writ Court dated 01.10.2012,
passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.4451 of 2012 etc., batch.
Ms.M.Meenalakshmi filed writ petition No.4817 of
2012, challenging the rejection of her claim for
appointment as Anganwadi worker, on the ground that
there are three addresses with regard to her residence
and all of those addresses are not within 3 kms from
the Anganwadi Centre as anganwadi appointments are
given only to those persons who are residing within 3
kms from the anganwadi centre. The grievance of
Ms.M.Meenalakshmi is that though the Writ Court has
set aside the eligibility criteria stipulated in
G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal
Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010 with regard
to place of residence i.e, within 3 kms, failed to give a
specific direction to the State to appoint her as
Anganwadi Worker. As we have now set aside the
order of Writ Court dated 01.10.2012, passed in W.P.
(MD)Nos.4451 of 2012 etc., batch, holding that the
distance between the place of appointment and the
residence of the applicant should be within three
kilometers as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.163, Social
Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department,
dated 18.08.2010 is valid, the prayer sought for by the
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.889 of 2018
appellant/Ms.M.Meenalakshmi cannot be
countenanced and the Writ Appeal (MD) No.841 of
2012 is DISMISSED.
(iii) Writ Appeal (MD) No.858 of 2012,
filed by the State is ALLOWED and the common
order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.7981
of 2012 etc., batch, dated 17.10.2012, is set aside. ”
3.Following the same, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
Index :Yes/No [T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
Internet :Yes/No 07.04.2021
sj
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
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Commissioner,
Kilapavur Panchayat Union,
Tenkasi Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)No.889 of 2018
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD)No.889 of 2018
07.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
