Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs Selvaraj ... 1St on 3 March, 2021
W.A(MD)No.789 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)No.789 of 2011
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011
The Commissioner,
Melpuram Panchayat Union,
Pacode P.O.,
Kanyakumari District. ... Appellant/3rd Respondent
Vs.
1.Selvaraj ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Local Administration Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
3.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
4.The President,
Mancode Village Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 1, 2 & 4
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 21.10.2010 made in W.P(MD)No.5513 of 2005
on the file of this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
W.A(MD)No.789 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
Special Government Pleader
For R – 1 : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Murugan
Government Advocate
For R – 4 : Mr.V.Sasikumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)
The Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.5513 of 2005, dated 21.10.2010,
quashing the order of termination of service against the first
respondent/writ petitioner.
2.Originally, the first respondent, who was the writ petitioner,
was appointed as a Water Supply Assistant in the office of the fourth
respondent/Mancode Village Panchayat, Kanyakumari District.
Curiously, the appointment order, dated 27.04.2004 was issued by the
President of the said Panchayat on the basis that the writ petitioner
would be appointed as a Water Supply Assistant on the ground that he
had donated an extent of land measuring 20 X 20 square feet to the
Panchayat for the construction of the overhead tank in the area. The
said appointment order specifically states that his application for
Water Supply Assistant is considered only in view of the land donated
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.789 of 2011
by him and it is subjected to the approval of the District Collector, who
would determine his salary.
3.The said appointment order was forwarded to the second
appellant and a termination order was issued to the writ petitioner, as
per G.O(Ms)No.93, Rural Development (C-III Department), dated
26.03.1997. The above said G.O specifies the purposes for which
grants to be utilized and dispensing with the system of adjustment of
accounts between Panchayats and Panchayat Unions. The said G.O
specifically mention that the grants will not be available from
01.04.1997 for maintenance of power pumps. Clause 7 of the above
said G.O also mention that except as provided for by Government
orders, no fresh appointment on part-time/NMR/full time/temporary
basis of any category of staff should be made by any of the local
bodies.
4.When the above said ban order was in force, the appointment
order was issued to the writ petitioner. It is also admitted that the ban
order was lifted in the year 2006. The appointment order of the writ
petitioner was issued by the Panchayat President without adverting to
the fact that there was a ban order for any appointment in the Village
Panchayat at the relevant point of time. The said fact was brought to
the notice of the President by the Block Development Officer,
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.789 of 2011
Melpuram Panchayat Union, as the appointment itself is illegal. The
President of the Panchayat had terminated the writ petitioner from the
post of Water Supply Assistant.
5.The learned Single Judge is swayed by the fact that the writ
petitioner had offered a piece of land for construction of the overhead
tank and in view of the same, he was promised for an appointment.
Therefore, it is not open to the fourth respondent to terminate the
appointment order issued in favour of the writ petitioner. Besides, the
learned Single Judge had found that no notice was issued before the
issuance of the termination order. Hence, the Writ Petition was
allowed. When the order of appointment itself is illegal, having been
issued when the ban order was in force for appointing any fresh
employees, the question of making any appointment does not arise.
Merely because the writ petitioner had donated a piece of land, will
not entitle him for appointment to the said post. Hence, the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, without considering the ban order
during the relevant point of time, is set aside and the Writ Appeal
stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
[P.S.N.,J] [S.K.,J.]
03.03.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet
http://www.judis.nic.in :Yes/No
W.A(MD)No.789 of 2011
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 Secretary,
Local Administration Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
Kanyakumari.
3.The President,
Mancode Village Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Commissioner,
Melpuram Panchayat Union,
Pacode P.O.,
Kanyakumari District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.789 of 2011
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.789 of 2011
03.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
