Madras High Court
The District Collector vs Sivagnanam on 24 October, 2024
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
W.A.No.1089 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 03.10.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.1089 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.6902 of 2021
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2.The Personal Assistant
to the District Collector (Nutrition),
Office of the District Collector,
Villupuram.
3.The Commissioner,
Mugaiyur Panchayat Union,
@ Manampoondi,
Villupuram District. ... Appellants /
Respondents 1 to 3
versus
1.Sivagnanam ... Respondent /
Petitioner
2.Sumathi ... Respondent /
4th Respondent
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1089 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 20.09.2019 in W.P.No.25588 of 2008.
For Appellants : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Prem Narayan
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.]
This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order dated
20.09.2019 in W.P.No.25588 of 2008, whereby the writ court had set aside
the appointment order issued in favour of the second respondent as
Assistant Cook and directed the appellants to consider the application
submitted by the first respondent / writ petitioner to the post of Assistant
Cook.
2. The second respondent herein was selected and appointed as
Assistant Cook pursuant to the notification issued by the first appellant for
appointment to the post of Assistant Cook in Panchayat Union Primary
School at Nathankaduvetti, Mogaiyur Panchayat Union. The first
respondent had applied to the post under the category of widow and also
attended the interview on 02.03.2007. Even though the first respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
being a widow, was entitled to a preference in the selection in terms of the
notification issued, the second appellant, by the impugned order dated
29.07.2008, has appointed the second respondent as Assistant Cook.
Challenging the orders issued appointing the second respondent, the first
respondent preferred the writ petition.
3. The learned Judge, by holding that the writ petitioner was
entitled to have preferential treatment in the category of widow in view of
the notification / advertisement issued by the first appellant / District
Collector, the appointment order issued in favour of the second respondent,
who is not a widow, is against the notification issued. The learned Judge
further found that the first respondent, even though she is a widow, is not
facing indigent circumstances, cannot be a reason as the notification does
not require such a situation and thereby allowed the writ petition.
4. Assailing the impugned order passed in the Writ Petition, the
official respondents had preferred the above Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants submitted that, the appellants have gone by the
guidelines and relevant rules that are in force and that are to be followed for
appointment to the post of Assistant Cook and thereby, since the second
respondent alone possessed the necessary qualifications, she has been
appointed and posted as the Assistant Cook. It is his further contention that
the interview was also conducted and widow is not only the main criteria for
selection but the IQ and mental ability of the candidates for the post of
Assistant Cook were tested and therefore, it is not only the preference but
the competence was also the criteria for selection.
6. It is the further contention of the learned Additional
Government Pleader that, only pursuant to the recommendation of the
committee, the appointment order was issued in favour of the second
respondent as she was fully qualified for the post of Assistant Cook and
therefore, the impugned order of the learned Judge in setting aside the
selection and appointment of the second respondent on the ground that the
first respondent ought to have been considered, since she being a widow is
unsustainable and sought for indulgence of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Per contra, Mr.R.Prem Narayan, learned counsel for the first
respondent submitted that, the appellants can proceed with the selection
strictly only in terms of the notification / advertisement issued and they
cannot add or substitute any additional parameters, which is not found part
in the advertisement issued. It is his further contention that among all the
candidates applied, the first respondent alone was the widow and in any
event, more particularly the second respondent, who was selected
admittedly, is not a widow and therefore not entitled to the preference. He
contended that only taking note of all these aspects, the learned Judge had
allowed the writ petition, which is perfectly in order and needs no
interference and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the submissions of the respective counsels and perused
the materials on record.
9. The Government is selecting and appointing the candidates for
the post of Cooks and Assistant Cooks in the Noon Meal Centres
constituted under the Puratchi Thalaivar M.G.R. Noon Meal Scheme
Centres and Integrated Child Development Project. Further, apart from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
post of Cooks and Assistant Cooks, Noon Meal Organisers, Assistants,
Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi Assistants are also recruited and
appointed. In this regard, the Government has issued G.O.(SO).No.4, Social
Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme (Sa.Vu Thi2) Department, dated
05.01.2007, for filling up of the vacancies existing at the Noon Meal
Centres as mentioned in Annexure-I to the Government Order. The
selections are to be made in view of the prevailing orders and the guidelines
given pertaining to the educational qualification, age limit, reservation
mode, distance from the centres and other criteria. As per Annexure-I to the
Government Order, in Villupuram District, 179 vacancies were available for
the post of Noon Meal Cooks.
10. To fill up the vacancies, the first appellant issued an
advertisement on 03.03.2007 in the local newspaper calling for the
applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Cook in Panchayat
Union Primary School at Nathankaduvetti, Mogaiyur Panchayat Union,
along with other posts in the other Panchayat Unions. The qualifications
and the preferential criteria to be adopted in the selection have been set out
in the notification, which reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“rikayh; kw;Wk; rikay; cjtpahsh; gzpaplk;;
fy;tp jFjp vGjg;gof;f bjhpe;jpUf;f ntz;Lk;
taJ 25 taJ Kjy; 40 taJ tiu (01/03/2007 md;iwa njjpapy;).
bgz;fs; kl;Lk;/
* mikg;ghsh;. rikayh; kw;Wk; rikay; cjtpahsh; gzpapl';fSf;F
fhypahf cs;s rj;Jzt[ ikaj;jpy; ,Uj;J 10 fp/kPl;lh; Rw;wstpw;Fs;
trpf;Fk; bgz;fs; kl;Lnk tpz;zg;gpf;f jFjpa[ilath;fs;/
* ,th;fspy; fhypg;gzpaplk; cs;s mnj Ff;fpuhkj;jpy; trpf;Fk;
jFjpahd bgz;fs; Kjypy; ghprPypf;fg;gLth;/
* mnj Ff;fpuhkj;jpy; jFjpahd egh;fs; fpilf;fhj gl;rj;jpu; mnj
fpuhk Cuhl;rpilar; nrh;j;j mUfhikapYs;s gpw Ff;fpuhk';fspy;
,Ue;J jFjpahd egh;fs; njh;tpw;F ghprPyid bra;ag;gLth;/
* jFjpahd egh;fs; fpilf;fhj gl;rj;jpy; me;j Cuhl;rpia Xl;oa[ss
;
10 fp/kPll; Uf;F kpfhky; cs;s Cuhl;rpfspy; ,Ue;J jFjpahd egh;fs;
njh;tpw;F ghprPyid bra;ag;gLk;/
* tpjit kw;Wk; fztdhy; iftplg;gl;lth;fSf;F Kd;D}pik
mspf;fg;gLk;/ mikg;ghsh; gjtpf;F ,d Xjf;fPL Kiw gpd;gw;wg;gLk;/
* epakdk; bjhlh;ghf ahhplKk; gzk; bfhLj;J Vkhw ntz;lhk;
vd;W Ml;rpah; gpun$e;jpu et;ePj; nfl;Lbfhz;Ls;shh;/
* nkYk; tptu';fis me;je;j xd;wpa mYtyf';fspy; bjhpe;J
bfhs;syhk;/ ,t;thW me;j bra;jp Fwpg;gpy; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/”
11. As this was a paper publication, a specific query was posed to
the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in respect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the notification issued and he has confirmed that the publication dated
03.03.2007 in the local newspaper is the recruitment notification issued
calling for recruitment to the post of Assistant Cooks. Further, as per
G.O.(SO).No.4, dated 05.01.2007, the appellants were permitted to fill up
the posts by following the guidelines as set out earlier. As such the
appellants were directed to file all the earlier orders, by which the criteria
for selection of the candidates were prescribed.
12. The earlier orders issued and filed before this Court,
particularly G.O.(Ms.)No.203, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme
(Sa.Vu.Thi7) Department, dated 19.08.2005, only prescribes the following
criteria to be followed in respect of the recruitment to the post of Assistant
Cooks. Para 6 of the said Government Order is extracted hereunder:-
“6. Cuf tsh;r;rp ,af;Feh; kw;Wk; jpl;l xU';fpizg;ghsh;.
cyf t';fp cjtp bgWk; xU';fize;j FHe;ijfs; tsh;rr; pg; gzpfs;
3tJ jpl;lk;
fUj;Jf;fis muR ftdKld; ghprPyid bra;J mjd; go
nkny gof;fg;gl;l murhizapy; btspaplg;gl;l Mizfspd; go
fhypg;gzpapl';fSf;F epakdk; bra;ag;gLk; nghJ ikaj;jpypUe;J J}u
Rw;wst[ filg;gpog;gJ gpd; tUkhW bjspti
[ ufs; tH';fg;gLfpd;wd/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
m) ve;j rj;Jzt[ kw;Wk; m';fd;tho ika';fspy; fhyp
gzpaplk; mnj Ff;fpuhkj;jpy; (Hamlets) trpfF
; k; jFjpahd gzp
epakdk; bra;a ntz;Lk;/
M) jFjpahd egh;fs; fpilf;fhj gl;fj;jpy; mnj fpuhk
Cuhl;rpiar; (panchayat) nrh;e;j mUfhikapYs;s gpw
Ff;fpuhk';fpypUe;J (Hamlets) jFjpahd egh;fis njh;t[ bra;a
ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW jFjpahd egh;fs; fpilf;fhj gl;rj;jpy;
mt;t{uhl;rp xl;o 10 fp/kPf;F kpfhky; cs;s Cuhl;rpfspypUe;J
jFjpahd egh; njh;t[ bra;a ntz;Lk;/
,) efuhl;rp / khefuhl;rpiag; bghUj;jkl;oy; fhypg;gzpaplk;
cs;s mnj thh;oy; jFjpahd egh;fisf; bfhz;Lk; mt;thwhf
fpilf;fhj gl;oj;jpy; mUfhikapYs;s thh;oy; ,Ue;Jk; mt;thwhf
,y;iybadpy; me;jf; nfhl;lj;jpypUe;J njh;t[ bra;a ntz;Lk;.”
13. As there are no other guidelines or rules except the criteria that
have been mentioned above, the conditions that are mentioned and notified
in the recruitment notification / publication alone can be considered for the
purpose of selection to the post of Assistant Cook in the Mogaiyur
Panchayat Union, Villupuram District.
14. On the perusal of the notification, it specifically gives a
preference to the widows and the destitute women in selection and
appointment to the post of Cook and Assistant Cook.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. It is not in dispute that the certificates filed by the first
respondent show that she is a widow and further from the counter affidavit
filed by the second respondent before the writ court, she has not asserted
that she is either a widow or a destitute woman. On the contrary, it was only
the stand of the second respondent that the first respondent herein though is
a widow, she is not in an indigent circumstance and therefore, she is not
entitled to the preferential treatment in selection. It could be seen that the
appellants have not filed any counter affidavit before the writ court and the
second respondent has also not preferred any appeal as against the
impugned order in the writ petition.
16. Admittedly, as per the recruitment notification issued by the
first appellant, preference will be given to the widows and there is no
condition that the widow must be in an indigent condition and more
particularly, when the second respondent was admittedly not a widow or
destitute woman, she is not entitled to the preferential treatment and
therefore the selection of the second respondent to the post of Assistant
Cook, ignoring the application of the first respondent, is against the very
notification issued by the first appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. The arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader
for the appellants that the preference alone cannot be a basis and the
committee had tested the other parameters, particularly the ability to be
appointed to the posts, cannot be sustained as the second respondent, who is
admittedly not eligible to have preferential treatment, has been selected by
ignoring giving preference to the application of the first respondent. In fact,
even the learned Judge while setting aside the selection made in favour of
the second respondent, had directed the appellants to consider the
application of the first respondent for the post of Assistant Cook only in
case no other widow or destitute widow had appeared in the interview and if
any of them had appeared, then it is for the second appellant to select the
most suitable candidate for the post of Assistant Cook from among them.
18. The order of the learned Judge is completely based on the very
recruitment notification issued by the first appellant and also the direction
has been given to the appellants to consider all the other applications, who
are entitled to the preference along with the first respondent and thereafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appoint the suitable candidate, which is perfectly justified, we see no error
or infirmity in the order of the learned Judge, which requires interference.
19. In view of the same, the order of the learned Judge is sustained
and accordingly, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] [G.A.M.J.,]
24.10.2024
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Copy to:
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
2.The Personal Assistant
to the District Collector (Nutrition),
Office of the District Collector,
Villupuram.
3.The Commissioner,
Mugaiyur Panchayat Union,
@ Manampoondi,
Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
