Madras High Court
The Aided Elementary School vs The District Collector on 29 November, 2023
W.P.No.26608 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.No.26608 of 2010
and M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2010
The Aided Elementary School,
Sengalmedu,
Represented by its Secretary,
C.Thirugnanasambandam,
Keerapalayam Panchayat Union,
Chidambaram Taluk 608 305.
Cuddalore District. ...Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Keerapalaym,
Chidambaram Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
3.M.Valliammai ... Respondents
PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26608 of 2010
the 1st respondent dated 29.09.2010 in Na.Ka.No.A4/1009/09 and the
posting order issued by the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.pd1/10868/09 dated
23.09.2010 pertaining to the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Noon
Meal Cook in the petitioner's school and quash the same as illegal and direct
the 1st respondent to grant approval to the proposal dated 06.07.2010 for
appointing the candidate selected by the School Committee for the post of
Noon Meal Cook and pass such further orders.
For Petitioner : Ms.A.Arulmozhi
For R1 : Mr.Arun
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Neethi Perumal
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
For R3 : Served – No appearance
ORDER
This Writ petition has been filed challenging the order of appointment
of the 3rd respondent as Cook in the Noon Meal Centre that is being run in
the petitioner's school and to direct the 1st respondent to grant approval to
the proposal sent by the petitioner for appointing the candidate selected by
the School Committee for the post of Noon Meal Cook.
2. Heard Ms.A.Arulmozhi learned counsel for the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mr.Arun, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Neethi
Perumal, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the 1 st respondent and
Mr.S.Neduchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd
respondent.
3. Ms.A.Arulmozhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the Government had taken a policy decision to extend the
Noon Meal Scheme Programme even to the Government aided institutions.
The petitioner being one of the Government aided school was also providing
the Scheme that has been extended to. Under the G.O.Ms.No.918 Backward
Classes Welfare, Nutritious Meal Programmee and Social Welfare
Department, dated 03.11.1989 procedure had been prescribed for the
appointment of Noon Meal Scheme workers in the Government aided
schools. According to her, one K.Vasantha was working as Noon Meal Cook
in the petitioner's school who had retired from service on 30.06.2010.
Therefore, the school Committee had called for applications from eligible
candidates to send proposal to the Government for appointment in
consonance with the aforesaid Government order. One
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mrs.R.Vaijayanthimala was selected from the applicants who had submitted
their applications and a proposal dated 06.07.2010 was sent to the 1 st
respondent. However, without considering the proposal sent to the 1 st
respondent, the 3rd respondent was appointed. Challenging the same, the
present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. She would heavily rely upon the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court made in W.A.(MD).No.125 of 2005 and other cases, dated
05.10.2007 and would contend that the Division Bench had specifically
directed that the subsequent amendments made to G.O.Ms.No.918 does not
take away the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.918 and therefore, she
would submit that the procedure in which the 3rd respondent was appointed
is a nonest procedure. Therefore, she would pray this Court to set aside the
order impugned in this Writ Petition and to direct the 1st respondent to grant
approval to the proposal sent by the petitioner for appointing the candidate
selected by the School Committee for the post of Noon Meal Cook.
5. Countering her arguments, Mr.Arun, learned Additional Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
General appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent would submit that during
the pendency of this Writ Petition, the Government had issued a further
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.4 Social Welfare, Nutritious Meal
Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 06.01.2011 and would
submit that the procedure for appointment under G.O.Ms.No.918
contemplated had been superseded under the said Government order. He
would submit that the present appointment had been made based upon the
procedures that was available at that point of time and would further submit
that the 3rd respondent had been working in the petitioner's institution for
almost 13 years and now her appointment at the present stage should not be
disturbed. He would further submit that the procedure laid down in the
G.O.Ms.No.4 is being adopted till date.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing for their respective parties and perused the materials
available on record before this Court.
7. Taking into consideration that the 3 rd respondent has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appointed as early as in the year 2010 and she continued to be in service of
the petitioner's school. I had raised a query to the learned counsel for the
petitioner that whether they are still wanting to unseat the 3 rd respondent. To
such a query, she would submit that she has instructions that they are not
wanting to unseat the 3rd respondent. But, however, would contend that
there are future vacancies in which the procedure to be followed.
8. As pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, The
Government had revisited the procedure of appointment contemplated under
G.O.Ms.No.918, dated 03.11.1989 and had issued a fresh Government
order in G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 06.01.2011. In view of the change of
procedure for appointment of workers under the Noon Meal Scheme
Programme which had come into effect from 06.01.2011 and also the
statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the
continuation of the 3rd respondent in their school, I find that there will be no
useful purpose in continuing to resolve the lis raised in this Writ Petition.
9. It is made clear that any future appointments to be made in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner's institution as also any other Government aided institutions both
minority and non minority, the Government shall follow the procedure
contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare, Nutritious Meal
Programmee and Social Welfare Department, dated 06.01.2011 in its true
letter and spirit.
10. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.11.2023
gba
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No.
To
1.The District Collector,
Cuddalore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cuddalore District.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Keerapalaym,
Chidambaram Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
