Madras High Court
N.Anantha Jothi vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 March, 2023
W.P(MD)No.6974 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.6974 of 2023
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.6590 of 2023
N.Anantha Jothi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Building,
Chennai-600 015.
3.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Personal Assistant to District Collector (Development),
Collector Office Campus,
Virudhuangar District,
Virudhunagar.
5.The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayat),
O/o. The Assistant Director of Rural Development,
Virudhunagar,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.6974 of 2023
Virudhunagar District.
6.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat)
O/o. The Block Development Officer,
Kariapatti,
Virudhunagar District.
7.The President,
P.Pudupatti Panchayat,
Pudupatti Post,
Kalkurichi,
Virudhunagar District.
8.The President,
D.Kadamangalam Panchayat,
Kariapatti Panchayat Union & Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.R2/23831/2020, dated
18.01.2023 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and
consequently, for a direction, directing the third respondent to appoint the
petitioner as Panchayat Secretary in any of the available vacancies in the light
of the Judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18626 of 2020, dated
16.09.2020 within a time period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman
for M/s.Lajapathi Roy and Associates
For Respondents : Mr.T.Villavan Kothai
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R6
: Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader for R7 & R8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
W.P(MD)No.6974 of 2023
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Assistant on 15.10.2010 in
P.Pudupatti Panchayat, Virudhunagar District. She submitted her resignation
sometime in 2014. The petitioner got married on 06.12.2013 and later gave
birth to twin babies. The stand of the petitioner is that since she was not given
maternity leave on account of the relationship with the new panchayat
president, she gave her resignation. She however argues that since no order
was passed on the resignation, it must be deemed that she continues to be in
employment. She sought reinstatement. Her request was rejected. Hence, she
filed W.P.(MD)No.18626 of 2020. Even while declining to interfere with the
order impugned in the writ petition and holding that the petitioner's resignation
is deemed to have been accepted, I gave liberty to the petitioner to submit a
fresh representation and I indicated that it is open to the competent authority to
revisit the issue and adopt a compassionate approach bearing in mind the
changed policy conditions. However, the competent authority has declined to
consider the case of the petitioner. The proceedings dated 18.01.2023 were
issued to that effect. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be
filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6974 of 2023
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order has been mechanically passed and that the District Collector
has not taken into account the observations made by this Court. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is quite justified in his contention that the
District Collector has not taken into account the fact that the petitioner is a
woman and that she had to resign under certain circumstances and that
therefore, she can be taken as a fresh entrant. However, on this ground, I will
not be justified in interfering with the order. Earlier order of rejection was
sustained by me vide order dated 16.09.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.18626 of 2020.
I will not be justified in directing the authorities to take back the petitioner in
service, when the petitioner had not succeeded in her earlier round. The fact
remains that the petitioner had quit her service. A person who had resigned
from service cannot insist as a matter of right that she should be taken back
either by way of reinstatement or as a fresh entrant. These are matters that are
left entirely to the discretion of the department. It is not for the writ court to
interfere with the discretion of the competent authority. I do not find any
ground to grant relief.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6974 of 2023
4. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
rmi
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,
Panagal Building,
Chennai-600 015.
3.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Personal Assistant to District Collector (Development),
Collector Office Campus,
Virudhuangar District,
Virudhunagar.
5.The Assistant Director of Rural Development (Panchayat),
O/o. The Assistant Director of Rural Development,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
6.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat)
O/o. The Block Development Officer,
Kariapatti,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6974 of 2023
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
rmi
W.P(MD)No.6974 of 2023
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
