Madras High Court
K.Sundaram vs The District Collector on 22 June, 2023
W.A(MD)No.1385 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.A.(MD)No.1385 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.10993 and 10995 of 2022
K.Sundaram ... Appellant
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Sub Collector,
Ramanathapuram Division,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thiruvadanai Taluk,
Thiruvadanai,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.R.Shanmugasundaram ... Respondents
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
against the order dated 20.09.2022, passed in W.P.(MD)No.579 of
2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
W.A(MD)No.1385 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.K.R.Laxman
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr.V.Nirmalkumar
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by
The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appellant had filed the writ petition before the learned
Single Judge challenging the appointment of Respondent No.4. The
Writ Petition was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon a Circular
bearing No.7/2012, dated 24.07.2012 submits that the persons
having qualification between 5th Standard pass and 8th Standard fail
only, could have been considered for selection to the post of Village
Assistant. It is the lowest cadre post. However, Respondent No.4 is
overqualified, as such, he could not have been appointed to the said
post. The lowest posts are required to be meant for the candidates
who could not complete their school education for one or other
reasons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1385 of 2022
3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned Single Judge failed to consider the said Circular, as such,
arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Learned counsel further submits
that the appellant had applied under BC category and today also,
there are vacant posts.
4. Learned Government Advocate relies upon the Rules namely,
the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Special Rules and submits that
higher qualification is not a bar.
5. We have considered the submissions.
6. The Rules namely, the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Special
Rules as amended and notified under Notification dated 17.06.1998
is under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The
same has a statutory force. The Government Order relied upon by
the learned counsel for the appellant cannot override the statutory
Rules. Rule 6 of the Rules reads thus:-
''6.Educational Qualification
No person shall be eligible for appointment to the
post unless he has passed V standard in a recognised School,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1385 of 2022
namely, a School maintained by or opened with the sanction
of the Government of Tamil Nadu or to which recognition has
been accorded by the Director of School Education under the
Tamil Nadu Educational Rules with sufficient knowledge to
read and write Tamil.''
7. Upon perusal of the above Rules, it would appear higher
qualification is not a bar for considering a candidate for appointment
to the post of Village Assistant.
8. In view of that, it cannot be said that the learned Single
Judge was in error in passing the impugned order.
9. As far as the availability of vacancy is concerned, the wait
list can be operated, if the persons, who were issued with
appointment orders did not join for one or other reasons. However,
wait list cannot be operated, if the person has joined and
subsequently resigned and subsequent vacancies had arisen. Time
and again, the Apex Court has held that wait list cannot be a source
of recruitment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1385 of 2022
10. In the light of that, in case, the appellant can demonstrate
to respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the advertised posts were not at all
filled up because, the candidates who were issued with appointment
orders, did not join and the posts under BC category remain vacant,
then, the official respondents may consider the application of the
appellant on its own merits. However, we clarify that if the appellant
is in wait list, the wait list cannot be operated to fill up the posts,
which have subsequently become vacant or vacant upon the
candidate resigning after joining the advertised posts.
11. With the above observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.(MD)Nos.
10993 and 10995 of 2022 are closed.
[S.V.G., CJ.] [R.S.M., J.]
22.06.2023
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
smn2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1385 of 2022
To
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Sub Collector,
Ramanathapuram Division,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Tahsildar,
Thiruvadanai Taluk,
Thiruvadanai,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.1385 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
smn2
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.1385 of 2022
DATED : 22.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
