Madras High Court
P.Mangayarkarasi vs The District Project Officer on 4 March, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)NO.1053 OF 2012
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
P.Mangayarkarasi :Appellant/Petitioner
.vs.
1.The District Project Officer,
Children Welfare Scheme,
Ramanathpuram District.
2.The Children Welfare Officer,
Thiruvadanai,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.V.Rameshwari : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.12097 of 2012, dated 12.09.2012.
For Appellant :M/s.J.Anandkumar
For Respondents :Mr.M.Murugan
1 and 2 Government Advocate
For Respondent-3 :No appearance
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
*************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
The Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order passed in
W.P(MD)No.12097 of 2012, dated 12.09.2012.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
3.The Petitioner has passed 12th standard and applied for the
post of Anganwadi Worker for the Anganvadi Centre at Oorikottai
Village,Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. She was
also called for an interview by a letter, dated 27.12.2010. As the
results were not published, she sent a representation, dated
03.08.2011. As there was no response, she filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.No.10288 of 2011, seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus
directing the first respondent to consider the representation,
dated 03.08.2011 for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker
at Oorikottai Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District
and also to publish the results, which was also ordered on
11.10.2011. Thereafter, a communication was sent to the Petitioner
stating that the selection process, dated 31.12.2010 and
31.01.2011, in which, the Petitioner had participated have been
http://www.judis.nic.in
cancelled and that a fresh advertisement is published and it is
open to the appellant to participate in the same for selection to the
post of Anganwadi Worker. In the interaggnum,the appellant had
also filed a Contempt Petition in Cont.P.No.389 of 2012, in which,
it was specifically stated by the respondents that the results of the
previous selection process was not declared due to announcement
of Model Code of Conduct for the Assembly Elections and the Local
Body Elections and only after that, fresh advertisements were
issued for selecxting Anganwadi Workers. According to the
appellant, the communication was sent to her belatedly informing
that the earlier selection process was cancelled, only on
16.07.2012. Hence the said communication is sought to be quashed
in the Writ Petition, which was rightly dismissed by the learned
Single Judge. When the selection process itself is scrabbed by the
Government on the ground that the Model Code of Conduct was in
force during the relevant point of time,the Courts cannot interfere
in the same. It is not the case of the appellant that he was
prevented or he was prohibited from participating in the selection
process for the second time. In the next selection process, merely
because she could not participate for the second time and got
selected, she cannot challenge the cancellation of the previous
selection process.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4.The case of the appellant that if the results of the earlier
selection process was announced and the results were made
known to her, she could have applied for the second time, is only
misconceived and the same has to be rejected. When the appellant
had not even participated in the selection process for the second
time, she has no locus-standi to challenge the earlier selection
process. However, in the Writ Petition, the challenge is only to the
communication sent regarding the cancellation of the earlier
selection process. As much water has flown after that and that the
list of selected candidates had already been published pursuant to
the selection process for the second time. In the cirumstances
stated above, there is nothing to adjudicate further in this Writ
Appeal.
5.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [S.K.,J.]
04.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
http://www.judis.nic.in
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 Project Officer,
Children Welfare Scheme,
Ramanathpuram District.
2.The Children Welfare Officer,
Thiruvadanai,
Ramanathapuram District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NO.1053 OF 2012
and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
04.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
