R.Raja vs The Tahsildar
2023 Latest Caselaw 734 Mad

                                                                                    W.P.No.1190 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATE: 19.01.2023

                                                         CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                                    W.P.No.1190 of 2023
                                                            &
                                                   W.M.P.No.1220 of 2023


                     R.Raja
                     S/o. Ramamoorthi                                       .. Petitioner

                                                            Vs.
                     1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office
                       Virudhachalam Taluk,
                       Cuddalore District.

                     2.The District Collector
                       Cuddalore District.                                ... Respondents

                                  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                     seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to select the
                     petitioner for the post of Village Assistant pertaining to notification
                     No.Na.Ka.D1/3887/2022 dated 10.10.2022.


                                  For Petitioner       : Mr.G.Kadhiresan

                                  For Respondents      : Mr.Ru.Dinesh Rajkumar
                                                         Additional Government Pleader

                                                           *****


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/6
                                                                                    W.P.No.1190 of 2023

                                                        ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of

mandamus to select the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent issued a

notification dated 10.10.2022 for selection to the post of Village Assistant

and there were totally 17 vacancies. The petitioner applied to the post

under the category General Turn (blind). The petitioner also attended the

written test on 04.12.2022 and was also called for an interview on

04.01.2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he had

fulfilled all the requirements, he was not selected and someone else has

been selected, who has obtained a double degree and thereby, the

petitioner has been deprived of one last opportunity to get into the

Government job. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has

knocked the doors of this Court seeking for appointment to the post of

Village Assistant.

3. Heard Mr.G.Kadhiresan, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr.Ru.Dinesh Rajkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.1190 of 2023

appearing for the respondents.

4. The main grievance that was agitated by the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that the person, who has been selected under the

category General Turn (blind) is overqualified and he possesses double

degree, whereas the qualification that is required is only fifth standard

pass. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the petitioner was not even provided with the assistance of a scribe

and that the person, who has been selected to the post of Village Assistant,

had the influence of his father, who was working in the Revenue

Department. Thereby, the very selection process that was adopted by the

respondents is illegal and liable to be interfered with by this Court.

5. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, over qualification can

never be a disqualification and the law on this issue has been spoken by

the Apex Court in Y.Srinivasa Rao v. J.Veeraiah and others [(1992) 3

SCC 63]. This judgment has been followed by this Court in J.Jamuna v.

The District Collector, Villupuram District and others [2019 2 WLR

956]. Hence, the first ground that has been raised by the learned counsel

for the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.1190 of 2023

6. Insofar the second ground raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioner to the effect that the selection process itself is illegal, the

same is unsustainable since the affidavit filed in respect of the writ petition

does not state as to how the selection was illegal. In the first place, the

person, who was selected to the post of Village Assistant has not been

made as a party in this case. That apart, the facts that were urged by the

learned counsel for the petitioner are merely ipse dixit of the petitioner

without any supporting materials. Admittedly, the appointment has been

given to a person, who fulfills the criteria for General Turn (blind) and the

said appointment cannot be interfered on certain vague allegations made

by the petitioner.

This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and in

view of the same, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.01.2023

Neutral Citation: Yes/No Index: yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order gm

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.1190 of 2023

To

1.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

2.The District Collector Cuddalore District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.1190 of 2023

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J

gm

W.P.No.1190 of 2023

19.01.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis