Madras High Court
Sujitha vs 2/3 on 25 April, 2025
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
2025:MHC:1081
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos.7002, 7005, 7008, 7012, 7015, 7017, 7023, 7026, 7025,
7034, 7035, 7036, 7037, 7038, 7039, 7044, 7042, 7047 and 7048 of 2024
Sujitha ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.977 of 2024]
Rajeswari ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.978 of 2024]
Muthuradha ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.979 of 2024]
Kayalvizhi ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.981 of 2024]
Swaminathan ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.982 of 2024]
Sanjeeviraj ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.984 of 2024]
Sadhana Priya ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.985 of 2024]
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
Usain Nachiyar ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.986 of 2024]
Kavitha ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.987 of 2024]
P.B.Chilambrasi ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.988 of 2024]
Sasikala ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.989 of 2024]
Malathi ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.990 of 2024]
R.Sathishkumar ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.991 of 2024]
Anandan ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.992 of 2024]
Raguvaran ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.994 of 2024]
Suriya ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.995 of 2024]
Abinaya ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.996 of 2024]
Senthilkumar ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.997 of 2024]
Dinesh Balaji ... Appellant
[in W.A.No.998 of 2024]
versus
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Revenue and Disaster Management
Department Services Wing,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nagapattinam.
4.The Tahsildar,
Kilvelur Taluk,
Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents
[in all W.As]
Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
to set aside the common order passed in W.P.Nos.7283, 7287, 7285, 7320,
7303, 7294, 7291, 7271, 7290, 7317, 7275, 7280, 7266, 7282, 7297, 7301,
7273, 7298 and 7313 of 2023 dated 18.01.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Vijayashankar
[in all W.As]
For Respondent : Mr.P.Ananda Kumar
[in all W.As] Government Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
All the above Writ Appeals are filed challenging the common order of
the writ court dated 18.01.2024, whereby the challenge to the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
confirmation of termination and for consequential reinstatement as Village
Assistants was dismissed.
2. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Appeals are the same,
the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The short facts to be noted in these appeals are that the fourth
respondent Tahsildar, had invited applications in respect of filling up the
posts of 19 Village Assistants in Kilvelur Taluk, Nagapattinam District. The
appellants in these Writ Appeals had applied and on being successful, they
have been selected as Village Assistants. The selection list was forwarded to
the third respondent and based on his approval, the fourth respondent issued
appointment orders to the appellants on 11.10.2021, appointing them as
Village Assistants.
4. Since several complaints were received in respect of the
process of appointments and further, Writ Petition was filed challenging the
selection in W.P.No.23906 of 2021, an enquiry was conducted and the
Special Deputy Collector submitted a report dated 14.12.2021 to the second
respondent pointing out the irregularities in the selection process in not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
following the rules and further that the appointments were not made in
consonance with the guidelines issued by the Government in
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services
Wing (Ser 8(1)) Section, dated 17.10.2020 [hereinafter referred to as
“G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020”].
5. Pursuant to the report, the second respondent after an enquiry
by order dated 10.06.2022, cancelled the appointments and directed the
fourth respondent to fill up the posts by following due process of law. On
compliance with the same, the fourth respondent, by an order dated
11.06.2022, removed the appellants from service.
6. The appellants challenged the order of removal before this
Court in a batch of cases in W.P.No.15742 of 2022 and others and the
learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 26.08.2022, allowed the
Writ Petitions by setting aside the order of the second respondent dated
11.06.2022 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The
second respondent was directed to issue appropriate notice to the appellants
seeking explanation, based on the enquiry report and any other materials
and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
The learned Judge also made it clear that the reinstatement of the appellants
into service will be only based on the final order to be passed by the fourth
respondent in the enquiry proceedings.
7. The appellants preferred appeals in W.A.No.2480 of 2022 and
others and the Division Bench by order dated 21.12.2022, disposed of the
appeals, directing the second respondent to issue notice afresh, conduct
enquiry and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits after affording
sufficient opportunities to the appellants. However, prior to this order being
made ready, in compliance with the directions of the learned single Judge,
the fourth respondent, on completion of the enquiry by a detailed order
dated 05.01.2023, confirmed the order of termination, holding that the entire
selection had been made in violation to the prevailing rules and the
Government Orders in force. The appellants have challenged the orders of
the fourth respondent in the Writ Petitions in a batch of cases in
W.P.No.7266 of 2023 and others.
8. The writ court came to the conclusion that the appointments
had not been made in consonance with the guidelines issued in
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 and none of the parameters fixed for
selection procedure to be adopted were followed. Further finding that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
selection had been hurriedly carried out by even intimating the appointment
orders through telephone to enable them to join duty on the same day, held
that there had been lack of transparency in the selection process. The writ
court held that there is no infirmity in the orders of the fourth respondent,
since the same has been passed through a detailed order after conducting
enquiry even prior to the receipt of the orders of the Division Bench. As
such by a common impugned order had dismissed the batch of writ
petitions. Assailing the orders of the writ court, the appellants herein have
preferred separate Writ Appeals.
9. Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that the orders cancelling the appointments have been
made only on the ground that G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 has not
been followed, but the Government Order was never communicated to the
fourth respondent and as such, the fourth respondent had undertaken the
selection process as per the orders that were in vogue and therefore, the
selection process cannot be faulted on this ground. When G.O.(Ms.)No.574
dated 17.10.2020 was not communicated or brought to the notice of the
fourth respondent, the appointments made cannot be cancelled on the
ground of non-compliance of the procedure contemplated in G.O.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
10. It is his further contention that the fourth respondent had
undertaken a proper selection process by calling for the applications and
selections were made through the interview committee and the selected list
was sent for approval to the third respondent and only after such approval,
the selection list was published and appointment orders came to be issued.
He further contended that prior to G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020, the
fourth respondent was the sole appointing authority and the guidelines have
been issued only thereafter and therefore, the entire selection process
undertaken is perfectly in order.
11. Learned counsel further by drawing our attention to the
proceedings of the District Collector dated 31.12.2020 and the proceedings
of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 25.01.2021,
contended that they have only intimated the fourth respondent and other
Tahsildars to follow the guidelines as stipulated in G.O.(Ms.)No.382
Finance (CMPC) Department dated 20.05.2020. When G.O.(Ms.)No.574
dated 17.10.2020 has not been referred to, it is clear that this Government
Order was not brought to the notice of the fourth respondent and the fourth
respondent who was the competent authority, had undertaken the selection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
process and appointed the appellants.
12. Learned counsel further contended that the flaw in respect of
the residence criteria cited for cancellation in respect of few of the
appellants cannot be sustained, as some of them have shifted their residence
on marriage. It is his vehement contention that when there was a specific
direction by the Division Bench directing the second respondent to conduct
enquiry afresh and pass orders on merits, the order of the fourth respondent
in confirming the orders of termination is not in compliance with the orders
of the Division Bench and therefore, cannot be sustained.
13. He further mainly relied on the RTI communications received
to contend that G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020, was sent to the fourth
respondent office only in the year 2022. He contended that since the
appellants had undergone the proper selection process and they were not
aware of any flaw in the procedures and all the appellants were qualified
and appointed, they ought to be allowed to continue in service and sought
for interference of this court.
14. Contending contra, Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, learned Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that G.O.(Ms.)No.574
dated 17.10.2020 itself came to be issued only pursuant to the directions of
the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court and detailed
guidelines have been issued in the Government Order setting out the
procedures to be contemplated in the selection process and the fourth
respondent who was aware of the same, had flouted these orders and had
appointed the appellants illegally.
15. He further contended that on enquiry conducted, it was found
that even several non-residents were appointed and the entire norms have
been breached. It is his further contention that the RTI information mainly
relied on by the appellants is all fabricated and the learned single Judge,
after finding that there were several irregularities committed in the selection
process, had rightly dismissed the writ petitions, which needs no
interference and sought for dismissal of these appeals.
16. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available
on record.
17. The appointments of the Village Servants were earlier governed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
by the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980. The Government
issued G.O.(Ms.)No.521 Revenue (Ser. VII(2)) Department dated
17.06.1998 by framing the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Village
Assistants under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, in supersession of
the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980, which will form
Section 53 in Volume III of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual, 1987.
18. As per Rule 3, the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the
concerned Village shall be the appointing authority and Rules 5 and 6
prescribe the age limit and the educational qualification. Rule 7 prescribes
the other qualifications and as per Rule 7(c), 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. As per Rule
10, every person appointed to the post shall reside in the Village in which he
is appointed.
19. The Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants
Service was amended by G.O.(Ms.)No.375 Revenue (Ser 8(1)) Department
dated 19.10.2015. In view of the amendment, as per Rule 2, the appointment
shall be made by direct recruitment after calling for applications through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
advertisements apart from calling lists from employment exchange. The
other qualification in Rule 7(a)(i) i.e., able to ride a bicycle, was deleted and
Rule 7(c) was amended to the effect that “the person appointed to the post
shall belong to the Taluk to which he is appointed”.
20. Thereafter, in an issue that arose in respect of the appointments,
the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court, by order dated
14.06.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.19924 of 2013, had directed the Government to
issue guidelines / instructions to the competent authorities to ensure that
written examinations are conducted for selection to the post of Village
Assistants and further directions were also issued in respect of the allocation
of marks in the selection and other procedures. In compliance with the
directions, the Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020,
setting out the following procedures / guidelines to be followed for selection
to the post of Village Assistants.
21. The relevant portion of the above said Government Order is
extracted hereunder:-
“3. The Government, after careful examination of the proposal of
the Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Revenue Administration
and in compliance with the orders of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
Madras High Court in W.P.(MD)No.19924 of 2013 dated
14.06.2019, directs the Tahsildar concerned shall obtain the
approval each and every stage of the selection process of Village
Assistants from the District Collector concerned. (From the
notification stage upto final appointment stage). The District
Collector concerned shall ensure that the entire process of selection
is not made on favoritism and nepotism to any of the applicants in
the competition with any influence. The entire process of selection of
Village Assistant shall be made transparent and the results should be
published in the websites of the District Collectorates concerned.
The Government issues guidelines for the criteria, which is to be
followed for the selection of the post of Village Assistant hereafter as
detailed below, across the State of Tamil Nadu:
Sl. Criteria for Selection Marks to be Aggregate
No. awarded
1 Educational Qualification
(As on 1st July of the year of
Recruitment)
2 Riding / Driving Skill
(As on 1st July of the year of
Recruitment)
c) Holding Four Wheeler licence
(live)
3 Reading and Writing Skill
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
(Both Tamil and English)
4 Nativity
(to be confirmed with birth
certificate and present address
proof) :
b) Born within the Taluk limits .....
as on date)
5 Interview:
Interview shall be conducted by a
following three officials;
a) Taluk Tahsildar
b) Any other Special Tahsildar of
the Taluk, viz., Special Tahsildar
(SSS) / Settlement / LA / etc or in
their absence, any other official
nominated by the Tahsildar
c) Any Deputy Tahsildar of the
Taluk (Each official shall award a
maximum of 15 marks to the
candidates and the average of the
three shall be awarded to the
candidate as final marks of
interview)
(If more than one candidates have scored equal marks for one
vacancy, then the senior candidate by age must be selected).
4. In case of any deviation from the above established
procedure, suitable disciplinary action shall be initiated against all
the erring officials, involving violation of the above procedure by the
District Collector concerned.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
22. The said G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 has set out the
procedures to be followed in selection to the post of village assistant as
extracted above. Thereafter, in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a
ban on creation of new posts. The Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.382
dated 24.10.2020, wherein an amendment was made to G.O.(Ms.)248
Finance (CMPC) Department dated 20.05.2020, by bringing an amendment
to para 3 of the Government Order, which reads as follows:-
“AMENDMENT
“Recruitment against existing entry level vacant posts including on
compassionate grounds shall continue. In cases where the posts have
been vacant for more than 3 years, approval of the Staff Committee
shall be obtained for revival of the posts prior to filling them up.”
23. While the above amendment to the G.O. No.248, was general
in nature, which applies to the appointments in all Departments, this does
not have anything to do or modify the selection procedure that is to be
adopted for filling up the post of the Village Assistants as contemplated
under G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
24. While so, the fourth respondent had issued advertisements
calling for applications for filling up the posts of 19 Village Assistants in
Kilvelur Taluk, Nagapattinam District. The communal rotation followed for
the said post as recorded by the writ court is as follows:-
Sl. No. Communal Category Priority / No. of
Rotation No. Non priority vacancies
- Women
Women
- Women
- Women
- Ex.Service
man
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
25. The written examination and interview were conducted, based
on which the appellants were called for certificate verification and the
fourth respondent, after obtaining the approval of the third respondent
Revenue Divisional Officer, had appointed the appellants on 11.10.2021.
However as referred earlier, in view of the complaints received regarding
irregularities in selections made and writ petition filed, enquiry was
conducted by the Special Deputy Collector. He submitted a report on
14.12.2021 pointing out the irregularities in the selection process, which are
in violation of the rules and G.O. Ms. No.574 dated 17.10.2020. Pursuant to
the report, after an enquiry, the 2nd respondent cancelled the appointments
and based on which, the 4th respondent by order dated 11.06.2022, removed
the appellants from service.
26. In the challenge made to the cancellation of appointment,
learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 26.08.2022 in W.P.
No.15742 of 2022 and batch set aside the orders and directed the 4th
respondent to issue notice seeking explanation, conduct enquiry and based
on the enquiry report pass fresh orders on merits. In the appeal filed by the
appellants in W.A.No.2480 of 2022 and batch, the Division Bench by order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
dated 21.12.2022 disposed of the appeals by directing the 2nd respondent to
issue fresh notice, conduct enquiry and pass orders after affording
opportunity.
27. However before the order of the Division Bench was made
ready, the fourth respondent in compliance to the orders of the learned
single judge, after enquiry had passed a detailed order dated 05.01.2023,
holding that the entire 19 appointments had been made by not following the
procedure as set out in G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020. Further among
them nearly 11 persons have also been appointed who do not belong to the
Taluk, completely in violation of the rule and therefore found that the entire
selection process was illegally carried out. In the further challenge made in
the writ petitions, the writ court had also found that there had been
irregularity in appointing the appellants, as the same was in complete
violation as set out in G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020.
28. Further, it is observed that the communal rotation has not been
strictly adhered to and the writ court also found that the select list had not
been displayed on the notice board and without even sending the
appointment orders through registered post, the communications were made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
hurriedly through telephone and appointments were made on the same day
as such there had been a complete lack of transparency in the selection
process.
29. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that though G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020, in fact had set
out the parameters / guidelines to be followed in selection to the post of
Village Assistants, the same was not communicated to the fourth
respondent. Further, the proceedings of the District Collector, dated
31.12.2020 and the Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated
25.01.2021, had only directed the Tahsildars to carry out the selection
process in due compliance to G.O.(Ms.)No.382 dated 20.05.2020. The
fourth respondent who was the appointing authority as per the procedure
that was in vogue had gone ahead with the selection process and after
obtaining approval from the third respondent had appointed the appellants.
30. In support of their contentions, strong reliance was made to the
RTI communication received by the appellants from the District Collector
Office, Nagapattinam, dated 19.02.2024, the RTI communication from the
District Collector Office, Mayiladuthurai, dated 12.02.2024 and the RTI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
communication dated 17.09.2024, from the fourth respondent.
31. Learned counsel also produced the original RTI
communications along with the covers sent to the appellants to justify that
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 was sent to the fourth respondent office
from the second respondent only in the year 2022. Therefore, the crucial
issue to be seen, is as to whether G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020, which
set out the guidelines, had been sent to the fourth respondent office prior to
the selection carried out for appointing 19 appellants as Village Assistants.
As the appointment order dated 11.10.2021 issued by the fourth respondent
contained several references, first of which was the communication of the
District Collector dated 31.12.2020 and the second communication was
dated 26.04.2021, we had summoned for the original file from the fourth
respondent office to ascertain the details of the two proceedings that were
issued by the second respondent.
32. The original file in Na.Ka.No.148/2021/A2 produced from the
office of the fourth respondent, contains the proceedings of the second
respondent dated 31.12.2020. This communication has been received by the
fourth respondent on 07.01.2021 by affixing the seal and signing it. This
communication reads that through the reference first cited, which was the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
communication of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated
07.11.2020, necessary guidelines have been issued in respect of the
appointment of Village Assistants and the same is annexed. The
communication further reads that apart from the guidelines in reference 1,
the guidelines in G.O.(Ms.)No.382 dated 20.05.2020 also shall be followed
and the vacancy shall be filled up in 3 months and while carrying out the
selection process, the fourth respondent shall intimate each and every stage
of the selection process to the office of the second respondent.
33. The letter further records that the references 1 and 2 cited are
annexed. In the original file, page 3 contains the proceedings of the
Commissioner of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management dated
07.11.2020, which was the first reference in the communication dated
31.12.2020 at page No.1. The communication dated 07.11.2020 refers to
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 and also the details of the court orders,
based on which the guidelines in G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 came
to be issued. It contains the guidelines as set out in the Government Order,
prescribing the criteria in respect of the marks and interview to be
conducted. The very G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020, also finds place in
the file in page No.7 which sets out the guidelines and procedures to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
followed in selection in the post of Village Assistants.
34. A perusal of the file makes it evident that the communication
from the second respondent dated 31.12.2020 has been received on
07.01.2021 by the fourth respondent along with the annexures containing
the communication of CRA dated 07.11.2020 and the G.O.(Ms.)No.574
dated 17.10.2020. The entire arguments sought to be advanced on the side
of the appellants that the fourth respondent was not in receipt of
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 and therefore, he had followed the
earlier selection process is factually incorrect. It is evidently clear that
though the proceedings of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration
and the G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 was communicated and
received by the fourth respondent long before the selection process, the
fourth respondent with knowledge, intentionally had deviated and failed to
follow the procedures and guidelines issued for the selection process to the
post of Village Assistants. As such the entire process adopted in selection is
not in consonance with G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 and is flawed.
35. Further heavy reliance was placed on the RTI communications
received from the appellants and the learned counsel vehemently contended
that the RTI communication dated 19.02.2024 clearly states that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 was despatched to the concerned Taluks
only in the year 2022 and therefore, the fourth respondent was not aware of
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020.
36. As the original of the RTI communications along with the
cover were also produced before us and even on the mere perusal of the
same, since we felt that something was suspicious in respect of the RTI
communications made, we had directed the concerned person who issued
the communication to be present in the court. The P.A. to the District
Collector, Nagapattinam District, who appeared in person along with the
original file submitted that the RTI communication that is filed in the typed
set of papers dated 19.02.2024 is fabricated and his signature has been
fraudulently copied and affixed in the communication by adopting some
dubious method. He produced the original of the RTI communication in
No.994, which in fact has been issued to one R.Muthusamy,
S/o.Rathinasamy, that pertains to the details sought for by him regarding
Rs.2,000/- paid by the Government for the agriculturists, which was also
reflected in the original RTI file of the District Collector Office,
Nagapattinam, that is produced before us. It is also seen that the original
RTI communication produced by the appellants and the cover have been
laminated and efforts have been made to make the recently prepared letter to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
look old.
37. Further, in respect of the RTI communication in No.997 dated
19.02.2024, the original file produced before us does not tally with the
communication that is produced by the appellants. The contents in the
communication produced by the appellants and the contents that are
available in the original file varies and all this makes it evident that the
appellants have indulged in malpractice by creating the RTI
communications only to justify their selections made in contravention to
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020, on the ground that since the GO has
been sent to the 4th respondent office only in the year 2022, the same was
not followed.
38. The appellants are unsuccessful in all their attempts undertaken
to justify their selection. As such we have no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the entire selection process undertaken by the fourth
respondent by which the appellants were appointed are illegal, flawed and
the selection process has been carried out completely in violation to the
guidelines set out in G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 and thereby the
orders of the Division Bench of this Court based on which
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 came to be issued, has been frustrated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
39. Further, it is the contention that there was no fault on the
appellants as they have genuinely applied and undergone the selection
process and having been found eligible, were appointed. Therefore the
appointments should not be disturbed for the fault that was committed by
the fourth respondent. In this regard, we went through the original records
regarding awarding of marks in the examination and the interview process.
40. On the perusal of the file of each of 19 appellants, it reveals
that the marks have been altered, interpolated and changed. Further, in many
of the files, the marks are entered in pencil and in almost all the files, the
marks obtained by the candidates have been altered. The entire marks has
been rigged and there has been complete favouritism and nepotism in
awarding of marks to the appellants for being successful in selection. The
appellants had also been a party in the irregularity committed by which their
marks had been tweaked to declare them selected and therefore, their
contention that they had undergone a fair selection process and they were
selected on being successful based on their eligibility is farce, therefore
rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
41. As a last attempt, the learned counsel contended that since
there was a direction by the Division Bench of this Court directing the
second respondent to conduct the enquiry afresh and pass orders and the
order passed by the fourth respondent is not in compliance with the
directions. Therefore the order is not proper and the matter is to be
remanded back to the second respondent to pass fresh orders in compliance
with the earlier directions.
42. From the records, it is found that a detailed enquiry has been
conducted by the fourth respondent and prior to the communication of the
orders passed by the Division Bench, the 4th respondent in compliance with
the orders of the learned single Judge, had passed the impugned order dated
11.06.2022.
43. Though in normal circumstances, we would have remanded the
matter back to the authority that is the second respondent to redo the
exercise, however from the perusal of the entire file as we have referred to
above, there has been complete violation of the guidelines and the rules in
force and further without conducting a fair selection process, the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
have been selected by rigging, interpolating and awarding marks to make
them successful. Further the fourth respondent and the appellants have
indulged in several malpractices and irregularities even going to the extent
of manipulating and creating RTI communications and records and placed
before this court, to have an undue advantage.
44. Though it is a fit case where the entire proceedings are to be
referred to an appropriate Law Enforcement Agency to register a criminal
case as against the appellants and all the persons who are involved,
considering the fact that the appellants have been removed from service and
also disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the delinquent
Thasildar and the same is pending, we refrain from issuing any directions in
this regard. However, it is for the second respondent to ensure that the
appropriate proceedings are taken against all the individuals involved in this
irregularity. Having gone into the entire gamut of the issue, sending back
the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration is only an empty
formality, which will not serve any purpose.
45. Even though from the impugned order, it is seen that nearly 11
persons have been appointed who are non-residents of the Taluk, we need
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
not further go into the same, as all 19 appointments of the appellants herein
have been made in complete violation of the procedures set out in the
G.O.(Ms.)No.574 dated 17.10.2020 and there was illegality in the entire
selection process carried out. The appointments have been rightly cancelled
and the cancellation has also been rightly confirmed by the impugned order
of the fourth respondent.
46. In view of the above deliberations, we see no error or infirmity
in the decision arrived at by the Writ Court calling for any interference and
as such, these Writ Appeals stand dismissed. It is for the respondents to
undertake the proper procedure for selection and appoint the suitable
candidates to the post of 19 vacant Village Assistants, Kilvelur Taluk,
Nagapattinam District, as expeditiously as possible.
47. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
25.04.2025
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
To
1.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue and Disaster Management
Department Services Wing,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Nagapattinam District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nagapattinam.
4.The Tahsildar,
Kilvelur Taluk,
Nagapattinam District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988,
989, 990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
Pre-Delivery Common Judgment made in
W.A.Nos.977, 978, 979, 981, 982, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989,
990, 991, 992, 994, 995, 996, 997 and 998 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos.7002, 7005, 7008, 7012, 7015, 7017, 7023, 7025, 7026, 7034,
7035, 7036, 7037, 7038, 7039, 7042, 7044, 7047 and 7048 of 2024
25.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/04/2025 03:15:32 pm )
