Madras High Court
The District Collector vs / on 1 August, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.751 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013
1.The District Collector,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
2.The District Project Officer,
Sivagangai District,
Sivagangai.
3.The Project Officer,
District Integrated Child
Development Project,
Ilayangudi,
Sivagangai District. ...Appellants
/Vs./
C.Indira ...Respondent
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 17.10.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.9391 of 2012
on the file of this Court.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Appellants : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The State is in appeal against the order passed by the writ
Court on 17.10.2012 allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner
rejecting her candidature for appointment as Noon Meal Organizer in
Ayyampatti Noonmeal Centre, Sivagangai.
2.To be noted that the petitioner had responded to call for
applications and participated in the interview for the aforesaid post. On
account of the inaction by the State in appointing her, she had sought
issuance of mandamus to the authorities and that writ petition had been
disposed on 12.10.2011 directing that an order be passed considering her
application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.An order was passed on 22.12.2011 rejecting her application
that was impugned in the Writ Petition. Pending appeal the State
obtained interim stay and the post aspired to by the writ petitioner has
been filled in 2019. The reason for rejection is that the petitioner belongs
to the Schedule Caste category, whereas the post in question is reserved
for Backward Class other than Muslim category.
4.We had sought a clarification as to proceedings under which
the communal roster was being applied to appointments in noonmeal
centers and a compilation of documents has been filed by the learned
Government Pleader. They rely on Government Letter No.10625/SW
department-2/2010, dated 23.07.2010 providing a clarification to the
effect that all posts of Noon Meal Organizers where interviews were
conducted prior to 19.04.2010, would be subject to the 200 point roster
set-out in G.O.(Ms).No.65, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K)
Department, dated 27.05.2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.It is based on this clarification that the candidature of the writ
petitioner was rejected. The question that would arise for consideration
is as to whether Clarification dated 21.07.2010 can be applied
retrospectively and whether the fixation of the critical date as 19.04.2010
to cover even instances wherein interviews were conducted, was
acceptable. We believe not, and are of considered and categoric view
that the clarification would be operative prospectively, and in respect of
those vacancies where call for applications are made subsequent to that
date, i.e., 21.07.2010.
6.This is specifically for the reason that the notification calling
for applications should itself, stipulate the category of reservation of
applicable to the specific noonmeal center in order to be complete. In
fine, we hold that Clarification dated 21.07.2010 must be read
prospectively to apply to Notifications calling for vacancies that arise on
and from that date only. This Writ Appeal is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.However, pending Writ Appeal, the post of noonmeal
organizer in Ayyampatti Village has been filled in by a qualified
candidate, who has been holding the post from 2019 onwards. That
candidate is not a party to these proceedings as her appointment was
made pending writ appeal. Hence and at this distance of time, we do not
wish to disturb the present arrangement. Hence, though the Writ Appeal
of the State has been dismissed, the Writ Petitioner is not entitled to the
benefit of that post, but an alternate one.
8.Learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions,
states that there are vacancies for the post of Scheduled Caste candidate
in some noonmeal centers. Hence, the writ petitioner may approach the
District Collector, Sivagangai District/first respondent with a suitable
representation seeking appointment, upon receipt of which, a suitable
position will be identified and the petitioner will be appointed to the
same, if she is otherwise qualified.
9.The petitioner is as on date 41 years old, which falls beyond
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the age limit stipulated for the post. In light of the discussion above, it is
only appropriate that a relaxation is relaxation extended by the State in
this regard, only. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
01.08.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
ta
Order made in
W.A.(MD)No.751 of 2013
Dated:
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
