Madras High Court
Sadayamuthu vs The State Rep. By on 3 June, 2024
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
W.P.No.13987 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.04.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 03.06.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Writ Petition No.13987 of 2018
Sadayamuthu ..Petitioner
vs.
1.The State rep. by
The District Collector,
O/o.The Collectorate Office,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Revenue Tahsildar,
O/o.Revenue Tahsildar, Veppur Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
3.Rathishkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the appointment order issued for Village Assistant
insofar as Elangiyanur Village is concerned, vide proceedings
No.Na.Ka.A3/2450/2017, order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the second
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 &
2 to provide appointment to the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13987 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thirumoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, AGP for R1 & 2
Mr.G.Surya Narayanan for R3
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the appointment order
issued by the second respondent to the third respondent to the post of
Village Assistant vide proceedings No.Na.Ka.A3/2450/2017, dated
12.01.2020.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 and the third respondent filed their counter
affidavit.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and
the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials
available on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
studied 10th standard in Government Higher Secondary School at Nallur in
the year 1999 and did not pass out the same. He had registered and renewed
his educational qualifications with the Employment Exchange at Cuddalore
District. The petitioner is a native of Elangiyanur Village in Cuddalore
District and he has been living there with his family for the past several
years. The second respondent issued an advertisement in the newspaper
inviting applications to the post of Village Assistant on 09.12.2017. As per
the notification, the applicants should have educational qualification from 5th
standard to 10th standard pass. Thereafter, they issued correction notice to
the said notification stating that the candidate should possess minimum
qualification of 5th pass to 10th fail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner submitted his application and he attended the interview on
29.12.2017. Though the petitioner performed well in the interview, the
official respondents selected the third respondent to the post of Village
Assistant.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
residing at Cheppakkam Village and the petitioner is a native of Elangiyanur
Village, where the post is notified. The learned counsel would submit that
the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.521 Revenue (Ser. VII(2))
Department dated 17.06.1998 notifying the Tamil Nadu Village Assistant
Special Rules. The Official respondents ought to have scrupulously followed
the Special Rules while making appointment to the post of Village Assistant.
One of the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Village
Assistant is that the person appointed to the post shall belong to the Village
to which he is appointed or the adjoining Village if no suitable candidate is
available from that Village. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the
Village to which the post is notified and the third respondent is a resident of
Chepaukam Village. As such, the learned counsel would submit that the
official respondents have committed a grievous error by selecting third
respondent as Village Assistant of Elangiyanur Village as and when suitable
candidate like the petitioner is available from that Village.
7. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 a counter affidavit has been
filed, wherein it is stated that the interview was conducted on 29.12.2017,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wherein oral and written tests were conducted, but the petitioner did not
perform well and scored less marks. It is also stated in the counter affidavit
that the petitioner was unable to read a simple word in Tamil and had several
errors in reading at the time of interview. It is also stated in the counter that
the third respondent was selected only on merits and the petitioner failed in
interview.
8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 contends that the process of recruitment of Village
Assistant was conducted based on merits and according to the norms and
procedures prescribed by the Government and as such, no interference is
required in to the appointment order issued to the third respondent.
9. The third respondent also filed his counter affidavit. Basing on the
averments in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the
third respondent would submit that the Village of the third respondent is
very nearer to Elangiyanur Village, which is in the same Firka and Taluk.
10. The learned counsel submits that unless a person is appointed, the
question of saying that posting to a Village does not arise by participating in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the selection process as interviews were conducted for various Villages.
11. The learned counsel further submits that the third respondent is
having requisite qualifications and he is more eligible than the petitioner for
the post of Village Assistant and he passed the written examination and
declared successful in the oral interview also. He further submits that the
petitioner has not cleared the written examination and oral interview and
therefore he cannot challenge the selection process as he is not an eligible
candidate.
12. The learned counsel for the third respondent has placed reliance
on the order dated 6th January 2020 in Writ Petition No.19520 of 2014 of the
Telangana High Court and contended that this Court cannot sit in an appeal
over the Selection Committee. The relevant paragraph of the said order is
extracted hereunder:
“Having considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that
when once the selection committee found that the petitioner is
not suitable for the post of Deputy Director (General), this
Court cannot sit in an appeal over the selection committee and
give a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner for appointment. There are no merits in the writ
petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. ”
Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the third respondent
sought to dismiss this Writ Petition.
13. Having considered the submissions of the respective counsels and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court by order dated
12.03.2024, directed the first respondent to produce the original records
pertaining to the selection procedure. On 26.03.2024, the learned Additional
Government Pleader placed the original records pertaining to the selection
procedure in question in this Writ Petition before this Court.
14. In the counter filed by the official respondents, it is stated that the
petitioner is treated as not suitable for the post of Village Assistant in view
of the fact that he could not read a single word in Tamil. This Court is
unable to satisfy that contention of the official respondents in view of the
fact that though the petitioner failed in Tamil language examination in 10th
standard, he passed Maths, Science and Social Science in Tamil medium
only.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. In my view without basic knowledge in Tamil language, which is
the mother tongue of the petitioner, he could not pass Maths, Science and
Social Science subjects. As such, there is no truth in the contention of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
16. This Court is unable to agree with the contention of the official
respondents in view of the fact that the petitioner passed Mathematics,
Science and Social Studies subjects in Tamil medium.
17. On perusal of the original records produced by the learned
Government Pleader before this Court in the presence of both side counsels,
it is found that the answer sheet of the petitioner is not found in the records.
As per the records with regard to the reading ability of the petitioner and the
third respondent, it is found in the records that the petitioner and the third
respondent are graded as “B” in the final comparative chart, but it is noted
that the petitioner falls under “Grade B” and the third respondent falls under
“Grade C”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. It is an undisputed fact that as per the selection procedure “Grade
B” is meritorious than “Grade C”. As such, the contention of the official
respondents in the counter that the petitioner was unable to read a simple
word in Tamil is far from the truth and this contention was raised by the
official respondents only to do undue favour to the third respondent, who
was graded as “C” with regard to the reading ability as mentioned in the
final comparative charge sheet available in the original records.
19. Besides all these things, there is no proper answer from the official
respondents with respect to the non-availability of the answer sheet of the
petitioner in the records. There is substantial force in the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is fully qualified and
eligible candidate to be considered for appointment to the Village Assistant
post for the vacancy notified in the Village, where the petitioner is residing
and as and when suitable candidate is available in the said Village,
appointing the third respondent, who is not a resident of that Village is
contrary to the Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Special Rules issued vide
G.O.Ms.No.521, dated 17.06.1998.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. This Court fully agree with the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, on perusal of the materials available on record
and after verifying the original records pertaining to the selection process in
the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned
counsel for the third respondent. Under these circumstances, this Court left
with no other option except to set aside the appointment order issued in
favour of the third respondent as the appointment was made by the second
respondent unfairly, arbitrarily against to the procedure provided under
G.O.Ms.No.521 Revenue (Service VII) Department dated 17.06.1998.
21. As this Court holding that the appointment of the third respondent
was made unfairly and arbitrarily by the second respondent, in the
considered opinion of this Court that the order dated 06.01.2020 in Writ
Petition No.19520 of 2014 of the Telangana High Court, which is relied on
by the learned counsel for the third respondent, is not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is allowed with the
following directions:
i) The proceedings issued by the second
respondent in Na.Ka.A3/2450/2017 dated 12.01.2018 is
hereby quashed.
ii) The respondents 1 and 2 shall appoint the
petitioner for the post of Village Assistant of Elangiyanur
Village, Veppur Taluk in Cuddalore District within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
No costs.
03.06.2024
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pvs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The District Collector,
O/o.The Collectorate Office,
Cuddalore District.
2.The Revenue Tahsildar,
O/o.Revenue Tahsildar, Veppur Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
BATTU DEVANAND.J.,
pvs
Pre-delivery order in
03.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
