Madras High Court
M.Subramanian vs The District Collector on 24 June, 2021
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.8206 & 8207 of 2021
M.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.Personal Assistant (Development)
To the District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
District Collectorate,
Tenkasi.
3.The Block Development Officer,
(Village Panchayat),
Keelapavoor Panchayat Union,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the first respondent in his proceedings
No.eh.f.vz;.q12/26990/2018, dated 05.07.2019 and quash the same
as non-application of mind and consequently direct the respondents
to consider the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Clerk in
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
any one of the vacancy in the Panchayats under the control of the
third respondent's Panchayat Union.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramasamy
For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the first
respondent, dated 05.07.2019, made in No.eh.f.vz;.q12/26990/2018
and consequently direct the respondents to consider the
appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Clerk in any one of the
vacancy in the Panchayats under the control of the third
respondent's Panchayat Union.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he worked as part time
Panchayat Clerk from 1998 in the Aayirapperi Village Panchayat,
based on the resolution of the Panchayat, dated 14.03.1998. While
so, the newly elected President of said Panchayat, in order to give
appointment to her brother, did not permit the petitioner to work
and discharge his duties. The petitioner filed a writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2013 seeking a direction to the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
therein to give placement in the post of Panchayat Secretary in any
one of the Village Panchayat under the jurisdiction of the third
respondent therein, based on his representation, dated 15.07.2013.
This Court, by order, dated 14.08.2013, dismissed the said writ
petition. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed
W.A(MD)No.218 of 2017. This Court, by judgment dated
12.06.2017, dismissed the said writ appeal. Thereafter, the
petitioner sent representation to the District Collector, Tirunelveli
District and the Block Development Officer, Kadayam Panchayat
Union, on 12.02.2018, requesting them to give appointment in any
one of the vacancy in the Panchayats under the jurisdiction of
Kadayam Panchayat Union.
3. The petitioner also applied for the post of Panchayat Clerk
on 29.03.2018, to the Block Development Officer, Kadayam
Panchayat Union. He was not considered for selection. Since the
representation of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner
has filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10258 of 2018. This Court,
by order, dated 03.04.2019, directed the respondents to consider
the representation/application of the petitioner, dated 29.03.2018,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of that order. As per the order of this Court, the
first respondent called the petitioner for enquiry. The petitioner
produced the documents and gave a statement. Without
considering the same, the first respondent rejected the request of
the petitioner. Challenging the said order of rejection, the
petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the order of rejection of the first respondent is arbitrary and
illegal. The first respondent has passed a non-speaking order and
prayed for allowing the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the third respondent and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
6. From the materials on record, it is seen that earlier the
petitioner was terminated from service on 24.11.2003, for certain
misconduct, by the President of Aayiramperi Panchayat. The
petitioner did not challenge the said order of termination, but he
filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2013 after 10 years of
termination, for a direction to the respondents to give placement in
the post of Panchayat Secretary in any one of the Village Panchayat
under the jurisdiction of the third respondent, based on the
petitioner's representation, dated 15.07.2013. This Court, by
order, dated 14.08.2013 dismissed the writ petition stating that the
petitioner was terminated from service and without challenging the
order of termination, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable. The writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.218 of 2017 filed after
four years of dismissal of the writ petition, was also dismissed by
the Division Bench of this Court, dated 12.06.2017. Subsequently,
the petitioner gave representation to the District Collector,
Tirunelveli District, on 29.01.2018, to give appointment as
Panchayat Clerk in any of the Panchayat under the control of the
third respondent. As per the orders of this Court, dated
03.04.2019 in W.P(MD)No.10258 of 2018, the District Collector,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
Tirunelveli District, conducted an enquiry, the petitioner appeared
for enquiry, produced documents and gave statement before the
District Collector, Tirunelveli District. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli, rejected the petitioner's representation by the
impugned order, dated 05.07.2019. The petitioner has challenged
the said order after two years of rejection.
7. A reading of the impugned order shows that the District
Collector, Tirunelveli District has considered the order of
termination of the petitioner in the year 2003, order of this Court,
dated 14.08.2013 made in W.P(MD)No.13394 of 2013,
representation of the petitioner, documents filed by the petitioner
and his statement, has given valid reason for not accepting the
request of the petitioner.
8. From the impugned order, it is seen that the petitioner is
aged about 45 years and he is over aged for appointment to the
post sought for by him. Further, he was earlier terminated for
certain misconducts in the year 2003. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District has considered all the materials in proper
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
perspective and by a speaking order, giving cogent and valid
reason, held that the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
There is no error in the order of the District Collector, Tirunelveli
District. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the impugned order is s non-speaking order, is not correct.
9. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
am
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
To
1.The District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
Tenkasi.
2.Personal Assistant (Development)
To the District Collector,
Tenkasi District,
District Collectorate,
Tenkasi.
3.The Block Development Officer,
(Village Panchayat),
Keelapavoor Panchayat Union,
Tenkasi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.,
am
W.P.(MD)No.10539 of 2021
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
