Madras High Court
The District Collector vs J.R.John Samuel Nallathambi on 21 January, 2021
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Commissioner of Panchayat Union,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Personal Assistant to
Collector of Tirunelveli,
Noon Meal Scheme,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants / Respondents
Vs.
J.R.John Samuel Nallathambi,
Secertary,
Sri Siddhi Vinayagar Senthamizh Vidya
Salai Chatram Puthukulam,
Tirunelveli Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent / Writ Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order dated 17.10.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.8140 of 2012.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Chellapandian,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar,
Special Government Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/10
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
For Respondent : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2012
passed in W.P(MD)No.8140 of 2012.
2. A batch of writ petitions were filed challenging G.O.(Ms) No.163,
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department dated
18.09.2010. All the writ petitions were heard together and a common
order was passed on 17.10.2012 allowing the writ petitions wherein the
learned Single Judge held that a part of the said G.O., fixing additional
qualification for consideration within three kilometers, is held to be ultra
vires.
3. Aggrieved by the same, a batch of Writ appeals were filed by the
Government and the said writ appeals were taken up for hearing along
with connected writ petitions and a common judgment was delivered on
22.03.2017 allowing the writ appeals in W.A(MD)No.792 of 2012 etc.
batch., and dismissing the writ petitions.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
4. The present writ appeal is filed against the order passed in
W.P(MD)No.8140 of 2012, wherein a Mandamus was sought for directing
the appellants herein to appoint one Petchiammal as a Cook in the Noon
Meal Centre of the respondent/petitioner school by considering the
representation dated 28.05.2012.
5. A similar set of Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.107 of 2013 etc., batch
were allowed by yet another Division Bench on 28.10.2020 following the
earlier Division Bench order and the order of the learned Single Judge was
set aside. It would be useful to extract Paragraph Nos.51 to 55 and 86 to
88 of the judgment in W.A(MD)No.792 of 2012 etc., batch:
“51. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional
Advocate general, the role of Noon Meal Organizers in the
entirety of the scheme is very important, as they are the ones
who are responsible for the implementation of this noble
scheme. They are the custodians of food commodities stored
in the stock room. Meals have to be prepared by the cooks at
the respective Centres everyday before 12.30 p.m., which
has to be supervised by the Noon Meal Organizers and it is
the duty of the Noon Meal Organiser to maintain the quality
and quantity of the food provided to the children. Hence, a
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
Noon Meal Organiser has to be present at the Centre all the
time and that can be achieved only when the Noon Meal
Organiser resides at the nearest possible place, preferably
within three kilometers from the centre. Since the distance
criterion as fixed in the G.O. is only with the object of
achieving the goal of providing quality cooked food to the
children under a special scheme, the same cannot be held to
be arbitrary or unconstitutional. In the State of Tamil Nadu, in
every village and in most of the rural areas, there are centres
providing cooked noon meals to school children. Hence, the
women residing in the respective villages would get an
opportunity of employment as Noon Meal Organizers and
Cooks at such centres. Therefore, they will not be deprived of
getting an opportunity of employment in the Centre located in
their respective villages. Hence, in our considered view,
particularly, having regard to the nature of employment
under the special scheme being implemented by the
Government, such a condition imposed in the impugned
Government Order cannot be held to be violative of neither
Article 14 nor Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
52. Moreover, it is not for the first time that the
Government have stipulated the distance criterion by way of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
G.O.Ms.No.163 dated 18.8.2010. In fact, the issue has
frequently been referred to the Government for necessary
clarifications and in G.O.Ms.No.203, Social Welfare &
Nutritious Meal Programme (Social Welfare-7) Department,
dated 19.8.2005, the Government have issued such
clarification. In the said Government Order, it has been
pointed out that when appointments are made for Noon Meal
Centres from a radius of 10 kilometers, much time is lost for
the person so appointed to commute between such long
distance and many a times such person does not turn up for
duty, which has been noticed during surprise inspections by
the officials. Further, if the person so appointed is not a
resident of that village, he/she seeks transfer to a different
panchayat/district and such matters are often litigated upto
the High Court, which hampers the effective functioning of
such noon meal centre. Taking into consideration such
difficulties faced, the Government has issued the following
clarifications in the aforesaid G.O.:-
(1) Wherever there is vacancy in any Noon Meal or
Anganwadi Centre, eligible persons residing in the same
hamlet should be appointed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
(2) Where qualified persons are unavailable in the hamlet,
eligible persons from other neighbouring hamlets under the
same village panchayat should be selected. If even such
persons are not available, then qualified persons from other
panchayats, not beyond the distance of 10 kilometers
surrounding the said panchayat should be selected.
(3) As far as municipalities/corporations are concerned,
eligible persons from the same Ward where there is a
vacancy should be selected, and on the unavailability of
persons there, eligible persons from the nearby Ward should
be considered, and if even such persons are not available,
then persons from the same Division should be selected.
53. From the above, it is clear that the Government
have tried its best to evolve a pragmatic solution while
appointing Noon Meal Organisers from places nearer to the
Noon Meal Centres, and the distance criterion has been
rightly fixed taking into account the practical difficulties faced
while appointing persons belonging to far off places.
54. 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
the said criteria fixed for appointment by G.O.Ms.No.163,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department,
dated 18.08.2010.
55. In view of our above decision, the validity of the
said criteria (i.e., laying down other qualification of 3 Kms.,
distance) fixed for appointment by G.O.Ms.No.163, Social
Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated
18.08.2010 is upheld and the selection made pursuant to
G.O.Ms.No.72, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme
Department, dated 30.04.2012 is sustained.
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 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
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
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.''
6. The respondent has sought for a direction to appoint a Cook in
the Noon-Meal Centre. In view of the earlier Division Bench order in
W.A(MD)No.792 of 2012, dated 22.03.2017, no appointment is made till
today.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
7. In view of the above, this writ appeal stands allowed and the
order of the learned Single Judge, is set aside insofar as the
respondent/writ petitioner is concerned. No Costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
21.01.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
pm
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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
pm
Judgment made in
W.A(MD)No.236 of 2013
21.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
