Madras High Court
S. Rajiv Gandhi vs K. Radha on 7 September, 2021
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A. NAKKIRAN
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
&
C.M.P. No. 12261 of 2021
S. Rajiv Gandhi ..Appellant
Vs.
1. K. Radha
2. The Personal Assistant to
District Collector (Development),
District Collectorate,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Assistant Director (Panchayat),
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
4. The Block Development Officer,
Pappireddipatti,
Dharmapuri District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
5. The President,
Athikarapatti Panchayat,
Pappireddypatti Taluk,
Dharmapuri District. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal as against the order dated 07.12.2020 passed in
W.P. No. 20574 of 2014.
For Appellant :: Mr.S. Vijayakumar
For Respondents :: Mr.G. Prabhakar for R1
Mr.K.V. Sajeev Kumar
Govt. Counsel for R2 & R3
Mr.K. Tippu Sulthan,
Govt. Advocate for R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
Questioning the order dated 07.12.2020 passed in W.P. No. 20574 of
2014, by which the selection of the appellant to the post of Village Panchayat
Secretary has been quashed, the present writ appeal has been preferred.
2. Consequent upon the death of one Manickam, the post of Village
Panchayat Secretary in Athikarapatti Panchayat fell vacant on 10.11.2013 and
in order to fill up the vacancy, list of eligible candidates were called for by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
the 2nd respondent herein, vide proceedings dated 21.11.2013, from the
District Employment Exchange, Dharmapuri. In response to the same, as
priority candidates were not available, the District Employment Officer,
Dharmapuri, had sponsored the names of five candidates under
MBC(General) non-priority category, which included the appellant herein and
the 1st respondent. After the selection process, based on the performance in
the interview together with employment exchange seniority, the appellant
herein was selected and appointed to the post of Village Panchayat Secretary.
Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing
W.P. No. 20574 of 2014.
3. The case of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was that she is a
physically challenged person belonging to MBC community and that she had
completed Diploma in Teacher's Training in the year 2008. She had registered
her name in the Employment Exchange in the year 2000 and when the
vacancy to the post of Village Panchayat Secretary, Athikarapatti Village,
Dharmapuri District, was sought to be filled up, her name was also
recommended based on employment seniority following communal/women
reservation. According to the writ petitioner, though she is senior to the 5th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
respondent/appellant herein in the employment exchange seniority and
performed well in the interview, the 5th respondent in the writ petition, who is
the appellant herein, was selected and appointed by the impugned order.
4. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that pursuant to
the list provided by the employment exchange, in the ratio of 1:5, five
candidates were called for. It was further submitted that the writ petitioner
was fully qualified and more meritorious to be appointed to the post and that
she, being a woman and physically challenged person, was entitled to be
appointed to the post under the priority category. However, without following
the procedure, the 5th respondent/appellant herein was appointed. Hence, the
entire selection is bad and needs to be interfered with as the appointment is
contrary to service rules.
5. The contention of the writ petitioner was accepted and the order
of appointment issued to the 5th respondent, who is the appellant herein was
set aside. Aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent in the writ petition
has come forward with the present writ appeal.
6. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
proceeded on a wrong premise that the writ petitioner had registered her
name in the employmemt exchange much prior to the date of registration of
the appellant and also taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner is a
physically challenged person and and that the selection process had not been
done properly, the learned Single Judge interfered with the appointment order
of the appellant. The appellant also brought to the notice of this Court that
Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules
2013, which was published in G.O. Ms. No.72 Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (E5) Department dated 09.07.2013 prescribes method of
appointment and the qualification that is required for appointment to the post
in question. The Rules specifically state that the employment exchange
seniority has to be considered for the purpose of appointment to the post of
Village Panchayat Secretary, that the District concerned shall be the unit for
applying and appointment shall be made on the basis of communal/women
reservation for the post of Village Panchayat Secretary. The minimum
qualification prescribed is SSLC or any other equivalent examination
prescribed by the Government. Based on the rules, it had been decided to
appoint persons to the post of Village Panchayat Secretary and names have
been called for from the employment exchange in the ratio of 1:5. The writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
petitioner as well as the appellant along with others had participated in the
selection process and the appellant, who secured more marks was appointed.
According to the appellant, when there is no allegation in the affidavit, the
learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of
appointment issued to the appellant.
7. The Government had filed counter affidavit in the writ petition
wherein it had been stated that originally, for filling up the post of Village
Panchayat Secretary, candidates were called for, from the District
Employment Exchange, Dharmapuri District. As priority candidates were not
available, non-priority candidates within the area were sponsored and the
interview was postponed due to election. In the interview, which was re-
scheduled and held subsequently, the appellant performed well ahead of
others and secured 86.5 marks out of 100 marks and the writ petitioner
scored 80.1 marks out of 100 marks. Since the appellant performed well
ahead of others, he was selected and appointed as Village Panchayat
Secretary. It is submitted on behalf of the Government that the order of the
learned Single Judge in setting aside the appointment order of the writ
appellant, on an erroneous presumption that the post is meant for physically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
challenged candidate may not be correct and it needs to be interfered with
and the order of appointment issued to the writ appellant has got to be
restored by setting aside the order under challenge.
8. In reply, learned counsel for the 1st respondent in the writ appeal
submitted that there are mala fides in the appointment of the appellant and the
same has been done contrary to the Rules. According to the learned counsel,
out of 5 candidates, one candidate did not attend the interview at all. Further,
it is submitted that appointment should have been made on the basis of
communal/women reservation and finally stated that when the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner is the seniormost person in the Employment
Exchange, seniority list should have been considered.
9. Heard both sides.
10. It is not in dispute that in terms of the Rules, for appointment to
the post in question, list of candidates were called for from the Employment
Exchange and the appellant was found to be successul in the selection
process, having secured 86.5 marks when compared to the 1st respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
who had secured only 80.1 marks. The learned Single Judge, on an
erroneous presumption that the writ petitioner had registered her name in the
employment exchange much prior to the appellant, that the post is meant for
physically challenged person and that the Rules have been completely
ignored, interfered with the appointment order of the writ appellant. From the
records, it is seen that the appellant had registered his name in the
employment exchange as early as on 17.04.2000 and only the renewal had
been done in 2013. Eventhough the writ petitioner vehemently contended and
tried to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge, even assuming for the
sake of argument that the seniority maintained in the employment exchange
has got to be followed, there were two other persons, who were senior,
having registered their names as early as in the year 1996 and 1997. That
apart, the post of Village Panchayat Secretary is not meant only for women.
Women candidates can be given preference in the selection process. Out of 5
candidates, the writ petitioner was the only woman candidate and she was
unsuccessful in getting appointment. If the contention of the writ petitioner is
to be accepted, the Government should have called only for five women
candidates. Hence, the contention is not acceptable. Further, the observation
made by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner has been sidelined
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
and she should have been given appointment as she comes within the priority
category might not be correct.
11. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appointment
order issued to the appellant, who is the 5th respondent in the writ petition, is
restored. The writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is
closed.
(S.V.N.J.) (A.A.N.J.)
nv 07.09.2021
To
1. The Personal Assistant to
District Collector (Development),
District Collectorate,
Dharmapuri.
2. The Assistant Director (Panchayat),
Dharmapuri,
Dharmapuri District.
3. The Block Development Officer,
Pappireddipatti,
Dharmapuri District.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
AND
A.A. NAKKIRAN,J.
nv
4. The President,
Athikarapatti Panchayat,
Pappireddypatti Taluk,
Dharmapuri District.
W.A. No. 1904 of 2021
07.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
