Madras High Court
The District Collector vs M.Veluthai on 1 February, 2021
W.A(MD)No.777 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.777 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Virudhunagar. ... Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
M.Veluthai ... Respondent / Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 15.03.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.9 of 2012 on
the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Ms.M.Padmavathy
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A(MD)No.777 of 2012
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 15.03.2012
passed in W.P(MD)No.9 of 2012.
2.The Writ Petition was originally filed by the respondent / writ
petitioner for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
of the first appellant / first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1947/A3/2011,
dated 18.11.2011.
3.The learned Single Judge, by order dated 15.03.2012,
disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the appellants / respondents to
reinstate the respondent / writ petitioner with all consequential
benefits payable to the respondent / writ petitioner. Challenging the
same, the Government has preferred the present Writ Appeal.
4.The respondent / writ petitioner was appointed as an
Anganwadi Assistant in A.Ramalingapuram Village, Virudhunagar, in
the year 2007 and she has been working there till the proceedings of
the first appellant / first respondent was passed on 18.11.2011. The
second appellant / second respondent issued a charge-memo, dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.777 of 2012
05.08.2011 and the only allegation in the charge-memo was that she
had furnished a bogus educational certificate and caused monetary
loss to the Government. Based on the charge-memo, the respondent /
writ petitioner had appeared for an enquiry, but, according to the
respondent / writ petitioner, no enquiry was conducted.
5.It is stated that the required qualification for an Anganwadi
Assistant is to read and write in Tamil and has to be less than 40 years
of age. As the respondent / writ petitioner had qualified for the post of
Anganwadi Assistant, but, she was dismissed from service alleging
that she had furnished a bogus certificate. The respondent / writ
petitioner's record sheet was attached in the typed set of papers,
wherein it goes to show that she has only cleared 4th standard in the
year 1980. The said certificate is doubted by the appellants /
respondents. The respondent / writ petitioner seems to have
mentioned 5th standard as her qualification, whereas, the certificate
shows that she has cleared only 4th standard. Therefore, she has been
alleged to have furnished a bogus document. When she has cleared 4 th
standard, obviously, she is entitled to be promoted to 5 th standard.
Though, the respondent / writ petitioner had stated that she had
completed 5th standard, merely stating that she studied upto 5th
standard, cannot be said to be a false statement. It is not the case of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.777 of 2012
the appellants / respondents that for the purpose of appointing an
Anganwadi Assistant, the applicant should have passed 5th standard.
Admittedly, the required qualification is only reading and writing
knowledge in Tamil. The respondent / writ petitioner also has been
working from 2007 to 2011, with whatever qualification she had at the
time of her appointment. Therefore, there is no ground for the first
appellant / first respondent to pass the order of dismissal.
6.In the light of the above, the appellants / respondents have
not made out any other ground and especially to substantiate the
reasoning for the dismissal of the respondent / writ petitioner and the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed. The
appellants / respondents are directed to reinstate the respondent /
writ petitioner with all consequential benefits payable to the
respondent / writ petitioner and the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
01.02.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.777 of 2012
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,
Collectorate,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Virudhunagar.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.777 of 2012
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.777 of 2012
01.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
