Madras High Court
Anusha Malarvizhi vs The District Collector on 12 February, 2025
2025:MHC:1564
W.P.(MD)No.19227 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 14.11.2024
Pronounced on : 12.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.P.(MD).No.19227 of 2017 and
WMP.(MD).Nos.15582 and 15583 of 2017
Anusha Malarvizhi
D/o. Murugesan,
2/1 Chinna Thathampatti Village,
Mesalur Post,
Virudhunagar Taluk & District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Personal Assistant to the District Collector,
(Noon Meal Projects),
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Virudhunagar Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Head Master,
Panchayat Union Primary School,
Chinnathathampatti,
Virudhunagar District.
1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.19227 of 2017
5. Mrs.Velmayil,
3/89, Middle Street,
Sorampatti Village,
Vadamalapuram Post,
Viudhunagar District. ... Respondents
Prayer: To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ or direction to call for the records of the first
Respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.R3/968/2016 dated
00.04.2017 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of
principles of law and further direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint
the petitioner as a Noon~Meal Organizer in the Panchayat Union
Primary School, Chinnathathampatti Village, Virudhunagar Taluk and
District within the stipulated period.
Prayer in W.M.P.(MD).No.15582 of 2017: Writ Miscellaneous Petition
is filed praying to dispense with the production of the original order
passed by the first Respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.R3/968/2016 dated 00.04.2017 at present.
Prayer in W.M.P.(MD).No.15583 of 2017: Writ Miscellaneous Petition
is filed praying to stay all further proceedings in Na.Ka.No.R3/968/2016
dated 00.04.2017 on the file of the first Respondent, pending disposal of
the above Writ Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Marimuthu
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1, R2 and R4.
2 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.19227 of 2017
Mr.S.Sadesh Kumar for R3.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. In the above Writ Petition, when it was taken up for admission
on 13.10.2017, the learned Special Government Pleader accepted notice
on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4. For the 5th Respondent, notice was
directed both through the Court and privately. The court-issued notice
was received by the 5th Respondent, with acknowledgement recorded,
and counsel has entered an appearance. A counter affidavit dated
16.12.2024 was filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent.
3. The petitioner claimed to be a resident of Chinnathathampatti
village and had applied for the position of Noon Meal Organiser at the
Noon Meal Centre attached to the Panchayat Union Primary School,
Chinnathathampatti. By the order issued by the 1st Respondent, the
District Collector, dated Nil, April 2017, the 5th Respondent was
selected and appointed to the position. Subsequently, the petitioner
submitted a representation dated 22.05.2017 to the 1st Respondent,
objecting to the appointment of the 5th Respondent.
3 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
4. One Sundarapandian submitted a representation under the RTI
Act to the Public Information Officer in the office of the 1 st Respondent,
seeking information regarding the appointment of the 5th Respondent
and the distance between the primary school and the village where the
5th Respondent resides. In response, it was informed that the 5th
Respondent's appointment was based on her performance in the
interview as per G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal
Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010. It was also stated that her
village may be located beyond a distance of 3 kilometres.
5. The contention raised was that, as per the Government Order,
an individual seeking an appointment must reside within a 3-kilometer
radius of the Noon Meal Centre. Therefore, the appointment of the 5 th
Respondent should be set aside, and the petitioner should be appointed
in her place. Although in WMP(MD) No. 15583 of 2017, a request was
made for a stay on further proceedings related to the appointment made
in April 2017, no orders were passed on the matter.
6. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the distance
prescribed for a residential qualification for a candidate, as prescribed
4 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
under G.O.Ms.No. 163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme
Department, dated 18.08.2010, and G.O.Ms.No. 72, Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 30.04.2012, specifies a
3-kilometer radius as a criterion, but it is not mandatory. The selection is
primarily based on the performance of candidates in the interview. It was
further contended that appointing a person from within the same
Panchayat Union (Block), even if beyond 3 kilometres, does not violate
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. It was also stated that the 5th
Respondent has been serving at the school for the past seven years
without any blemish, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any
relief.
7. The counsel for the petitioner did not dispute either the
community status of the 5th Respondent or her eligibility qualifications.
Furthermore, the fact that she has been serving in the position for the
past seven years following her appointment was not contested. However,
reference was made to the distance criterion prescribed under
G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme
Department, dated 18.08.2010, which states as follows:
“?Jhur; Rw;wst[
epakd gzpaplj;jpw;Fk; tpz;zg;gjhuh;
5 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
FoapUg;g[f;Fk; ,ilna cs;s Jhuk; 3
fp/kP/f;Fs; ,Uf;fntz;Lk; (Cuhl;rp – Ff;fpuhkk; -
tUtha; fpuhkk; nghd;witfs; fzf;fpy; vLj;Jf;
bfhs;s njitapy;iy)”
8. Based on the distance criterion, it was contended that the 5th
Respondent resided beyond the prescribed 3~kilometer limit and
should therefore be disqualified. Reliance was placed on the judgment of
a Division Bench in The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social
Welfare and Nutritious Department, Chennai & Others vs. M.
Muthulakshmi & Another, dated 22.03.2017, wherein the clarification
issued by the Government through G.O.Ms.No. 203, Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 19.08.2005, was
referenced and quoted. In this clarification, the Government provided the
following interpretation of the Government Order:
“(1) Whenever there is a vacancy in any Noon
Meal or Anganwadi Centre, eligible persons
residing in the same hamlet should be appointed.
(2) Where qualified persons are unavailable in
the hamlet, eligible persons from other neighbouring
hamlets under the same village panchayat should be
selected. If even such persons are not available, then
qualified persons from other panchayats, not beyond
the distance of 10 kilometres surrounding the said
6 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
panchayat should be selected.
(3) As far as municipalities/corporations are
concerned, eligible persons from the same Ward
where there is a vacancy should be selected, and on
the unavailability of persons there, eligible persons
from the nearby Ward should be considered, and if
even such persons are not available, then persons
from the same Division should be selected”.
9. After considering the aforementioned clarification, the Division
Bench rendered the following findings:
“53. From the above, it is clear that the
Government have tried its best to evolve a pragmatic
solution while appointing Noon Meal Organisers from
places nearer to the Noon Meal Centres, and the
distance criterion has been rightly fixed taking into
account the practical difficulties faced while
appointing persons belonging to far off places.
54. Therefore, we are of the considered view that
the writ Court has not considered the issue in its right
perspective, and it has committed an error in law by
quashing the said criteria fixed for appointment by
G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal
Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010.
55. In view of our above decision, the validity of
the said criteria laying down other qualification of 3
7 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
Kms., distance) fixed for appointment by G.O.Ms.No.
163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme
Department, dated 18.08.2010 is upheld and the
selection made pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.72, Social
Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department,
dated 30.04.2012 is sustained.”
10. Referring to this clarification, in a subsequent judgment,
another Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Chandra, W.A.
(MD) No. 107 of 2013 and batch cases dated 28.10.2020, reaffirmed the
same position. While considering the case of a Noon Meal Organiser
who resided beyond 23 kilometres, the court found that her
justification~claiming residence in the village due to marriage was
unsubstantiated and accordingly quashed her appointment.
Subsequently, another learned judge, in S. Baby vs. District Collector,
Cuddalore, reported in 2022 Supreme (Mad) 1038, held as follows:
“18.........However, the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this court has upheld the validity of the Government
Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.163 dated 18.08.2010 and
another Hon'ble Division Bench also followed the said
judgment and held that such criteria fixed has got nexus
between the objects are to be achieved and therefore it
cannot be held as unconstitutional. That apart, the noon
meal centers are to be maintained by the person who is
8 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
residing in a nearby place. The candidate residing in a
far away place may not be in a position to maintain the
noon meal centers in an effective manner. Considering
all these mitigating factors, the Government fixed the
criteria of distance and accordingly issued notification.
This being the factum, the contention raised on behalf of
the third respondent deserves no merit consideration. As
far as the case on hand is concerned, the third
respondent residing beyond the radius of three
kilometres and therefore in violation of the Government
guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.163 dated 18.08.2010.
That apart, the petitioner and the third respondent
scored same marks of 30. In such circumstances, the date
of birth is to be the criteria for selecting a candidate. The
petitioner is senior in age than the third respondent and
thus the selection of third respondent is in violation of
the Government guidelines issued. Accordingly, the writ
petition is to be considered. In view of the fact and
circumstances, the order of the first respondent in
proceedings in Proc. Na.Ka. Pidi. 1/296/2016 dated
11.06.2018 is quashed and the respondents 1 and 2 are
directed to conduct a fresh selection for appointment to
the post of noon meal organizer as expeditiously as
possible.”
11. However, none of the aforementioned judgments examined the
historical context of appointments in the Noon Meal Centre or the
9 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
impact of the distance rule, which effectively restricted the participation
of Scheduled Caste women in the selection process. Also, the effect of
any order having the sanction of Article 16 of the Constitution was not
considered. Therefore, it is essential to revisit this history, along with the
judgments that led to the quashing of the distance rule by this Court.
12. Before the introduction of reservations for Scheduled Caste
women in Noon Meal Centre employment, selections were made based
on specific guidelines issued by the government. According to the
revised guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.237, Social Welfare (Noon-Meal)
Department, dated 18.08.1997, the selected candidate should be a local
person in the village or he should be residing within a 1 KM radius of
the Noon-Meal Centre. The minimum educational qualification required
was a pass in the 10th standard. Also, candidates had to be below 40
years of age at the time of appointment, and their service would be
terminated upon reaching 55 years of age.
13. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No. 303, Social Welfare and Noon-
Meal Project Department, dated 19.08.2005, introduced further
guidelines. This order stipulated that whenever a vacancy arose in
Anganwadi Centres, a qualified local resident of the village should be
10 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
appointed. If no qualified candidate was available within the village,
consideration could be given to candidates from other villages within the
same Panchayat Union, provided they resided within a 10-kilometer
radius of the village where the vacancy existed.
14. This requirement of distance was examined by a distinguished
judge in the case of P. Vasantha v. District Collector, Dindigul, as
reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 402. In his ruling, the judge deemed it
unconstitutional and made the following observations:
“17. ....... if the contentions of the petitioners is to
be accepted then the preference should be given solely
on the basis of the residence, and that will be hit by
Article 16(2) of the Constitution. However, considering
the fact that the post requires constant attention towards
the children and the availability of the person in a
nearby area is preferable and a proximity of distance by
the eligible candidates may be constitutionally
permissible but the selection cannot be solely on the
ground of residential preferences to the exclusion of
other criteria has to be accepted as it will hit Article
16(2) of the Constitution. As rightly contended by the
official respondents, the proximity of residence/locality
is only a preference and not a qualification by itself.
Once it is established that none of the selected
candidates are otherwise disqualified they cannot be
11 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
edged out of consideration only on the ground that they
were not being the residents of the locality.
18. Further, preferring a candidate from a
particular hamlet to the exclusion of candidates from
other hamlets in the same Village Panchayat Union or in
respect of Panchayat Union Centres preferring the
candidates from only one village to the exclusion of
other villages living in the same panchayat union may
also be arbitrary and in many times, it may also result in
violating the communal roster being followed.”
15. This ruling in re Vasantha was upheld by a Division Bench of
this Court in W.A. No. 117 of 2009, dated 01.12.2009. In paragraph 7 of
the judgment, the following observations were made:
“Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to
accept the submission made by the learned Government
Advocate since the petitioner was residing 3 kms away
from the place where the Anganwadi Center is situated she
is not eligible for the post. Hence we are of the opinion,
the impugned order is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondents are
directed to consider the case of the appellant and the 3 rd
respondents are directed to consider the case of the
appellant and the 3rd respondent by affording them
opportunity of hearing for the appointment for the post of
Mini Anganwadi worker at Sethambal Centre, in
12 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
16. At the time of those appointments, no reservation was
provided for Scheduled Caste women in employment at the noon meal
centres. In the judgment in D. Pothumallee v. District Collector,
Tiruvarur, reported in 2010 (5) MLJ 46 the necessity of appointing
Scheduled Caste women in noon meal centres was emphasized by
Justice K Chandru as follows:
“8.2. Feeding of children by members of the
Scheduled caste will go a long way in removing social
disparities and practice of untouchability in different
forms. Feeding of children belonged to different
communities by a Dalit cook being resisted by the caste
Hindus is another form of apartheid and it is not
something new to this Country. Even during the Freedom
struggle, controversies arose among the National leaders
as noted above.
8.3. After bitter experiences, it was emphasised that
by communal feasting and food being served to various
groups by engaging cooks from underprivileged society
will remove instantaneously some form of untouchability
and will be a milestone in our march to an egalitarian
society.?”
13 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
17. In the judgment, the Court directed the implementation of
reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in
employment under the noon meal centres:
“9.1 In the light of the above, this court has no
hesitation to reject the stand taken by the respondent State
and by giving a positive direction to provide for
Reservation in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 45/1994, and also
in the light of the interim order dated 20.4.2004 passed by
the Supreme Court in W.P.(C)No.196 of 2001 in People's
Union for Civil Liberties, Rajasthan Vs. Union of India
and to provide for reservation for SC/STs. Till such time
they provide such rules of reservation, the State is
forbidden to fill up such large number of posts (as many as
20000 posts) without due representation to SC/ST
communities ignoring the Constitutional mandate.”
18. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 142, Social
Welfare (NMP) Department, dated 06.07.2010, introducing a provision
for reservation which paved the way for over 20,000 Scheduled Caste
Women employed in noon meal centers across Tamil Nadu, perhaps
marking a historic milestone in the country by implementing reservation
in noon meal centers.
14 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
19. After the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 142, dated 06.07.2010, a
consolidated order was subsequently passed under G.O. Ms No. 163,
Social Welfare and NMP Department, dated 18.08.2010. This order
introduced a new distance rule, requiring a 3 km residential
qualification, without considering the established constitutional
principles on the matter.
20. The appointment of SC women in noon meal centres was a
crucial step toward social inclusion. The subsequent imposition of a
residence-based criterion requiring them to live within a three-kilometre
radius of the school or institution effectively undermines the intent of
such affirmative action. Instead of fostering social integration, this rule
exacerbates exclusion and inequality, contradicting the very principles of
affirmative action and social justice that policies like the Noon Meal
Scheme seek to uphold. criterion The residence~based for
employment under the Noon Meal Scheme would only reinforce their
social relegation and economic marginalization. By limiting job
opportunities to those living within a three-kilometre radius, the policy
excludes those who, due to historical and systemic discrimination, are
forced to reside in peripheral areas rather than near schools or
institutions. This further entrenches social relegation and economic
15 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
marginalization. By limiting job opportunities to those living within a
three-kilometre radius, the policy excludes those who, due to historical
and systemic discrimination, are forced to reside in peripheral areas
rather than near schools or institutions. This further entrenches social
inequalities, denying them equal opportunity in public employment.
Such a restriction directly violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution of
India, which prohibits discrimination in government employment on
grounds of residence. Since only Parliament can prescribe residence-
based restrictions under Article 16(3), this arbitrary condition is
unconstitutional, effectively depriving marginalized women of their
right to fair employment and economic upliftment.
Article 16(2) of the Constitution explicitly prohibits the State from
discriminating in public employment based on various grounds,
including residence. Article 16(2) states as follows:
“(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them,
be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any
employment or office under the State.”
21. The circumstances under which this prohibition can be relaxed
are solely determined by a law enacted by Parliament, and no other
authority holds this power. Article 16(3), which permits the requirement
16 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
of residence as a condition for employment or appointment, states as
follows:
“(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament
from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class
or classes of employment or appointment to an office
under the Government of, or any local or other
authority within, a State or Union territory, any
requirement as to residence within that State or Union
territory prior to such employment or appointment.”
22. When a constitutional prohibition exists, the State Government
or any subordinate authority cannot impose a residential qualification as
a criterion for public employment. However, the State Government,
through G.O. Ms. No. 203, Social Welfare & NMP, dated 19.08.2005,
clarified the reasoning behind such a requirement for Noon Meal Centre
appointments.
23. It was observed that when candidates were appointed
from a 10-kilometer radius, excessive commuting time often resulted in
delays, absenteeism, or failure to report for duty, as noted during
surprise inspections by officials. Additionally, appointees who were not
residents of the village frequently sought transfers to different
17 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
panchayats or districts, leading to prolonged litigation, often reaching
the High Court. These challenges were seen as hindering the effective
functioning of noon meal centres. Considering these difficulties, the
Government issued clarifications to address the issue.
24. A similar justification provided by the State of Rajasthan for
restricting the appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers exclusively to
candidates from rural areas was rejected by the Supreme Court in its
decision in Kailash Chand Sharma & Others v. State of Rajasthan &
Others, reported in 2002 (6) SCC 562. The Court held as follows:
“?.....the residents of towns, if appointed will not be
willing to serve the rural areas and they will be more
interested in getting themselves transferred to
“relatively urban area and forward districts”, does
not in our view, stand a moment's scrutiny. The
apprehension that 'teacher absenteeism' will be rampant if
non-rural candidates are appointed........ The difficulties
sought to be projected by the State appear to be more
imaginary rather than real...?”
25. The reasoning provided by the Government is speculative, and
even if true, it cannot serve as a valid basis for restricting the right under
Article 16(2). The State Government lacks the authority to waive the
18 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
constitutional prohibition on imposing residential qualifications as a
prerequisite for employment. Moreover, with modern advancements in
transportation, numerous employees, including those in Class IV
services, commute daily from distant locations.
26. When LIC of India sought to recruit attendees, it followed
guidelines requiring applications to be invited from local employment
exchanges. However, this practice was challenged because employment
in LIC constitutes public employment, and imposing residential criteria
is constitutionally prohibited. In this regard, this Hon'ble Court, in
National Life Insurance Employees Association, represented by its
General Secretary & Another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Madras, reported in 1990 (1) LW 271, held as follows:
“6. Though Article 15 does not mention the word 'residence
Article 16, dealing with equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment, states that no citizen shall, on grounds of religion, race,
caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible
for or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office
under the State.”
19 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
“7.....Therefore, when the 'note' says that 'only
candidates in the specified Exchanges alone are eligible to
apply, it results in a classification, which is unwarranted,
unjust and not provided, even in the Regulations of the
respondent-Corporation. Under Section 49(2) of the Life
Insurance Corporation Act, the service conditions could
be regulated only by Regulations framed by it and not by
administrative decisions taken by different authorities
stipulating terms and conditions, which offend
Constitutional provisions. In the opening part of the
advertisement, the intention of extending 'preference' to
those residing in the branches situate in the areas
mentioned therein clearly bring about the intention of
confining recruitment based on the residence of the
applicants and to achieve it, the registration in the
concerned Employment Exchanges had been adopted.”
27. The appointment of Secondary Grade Teachers in Tamil Nadu,
which restricted selection to candidates within a specific district, was
struck down by a Division Bench of this Court for violating Article
16(3). In Unemployed Secondary Grade Teachers Welfare Association
v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2008 (4) LLN 560, the Court made
the following observations:
“31.In course of hearing, the learned Additional
Advocate General expressed an apprehension in respect of
20 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
qualified persons, who have got registered their names in
some particular districts such as Kanyakumari or
Tirunelveli, where many persons from 1989 or 1990
onwards, by virtue of their inclusion in the employment
register from an earlier date, would swamp the selection
relating to appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher in
other districts and thereby prevent the persons whose
names have been registered in such other districts from
getting the employment. This submission precisely
overlooks the right guaranteed under Article 16(2) in no
uncertain terms. Merely because persons from a particular
area are likely to secure more number of jobs in another
area, such apprehension cannot be a valid legal ground to
deny employment to those persons. As a matter of fact, in
the absence of any Parliamentary law as envisaged under
Article 16(3) permitting such discrimination, the entire
submission made by the learned Additional Advocate
General as well as the counsels appearing for the
Interveners is bound to be rejected.
32.Learned Additional Advocate General has also
expressed an apprehension that many times, persons from
a particular district after getting employment, and more
particularly women candidates, would seek transfer to
their own native district, thereby causing difficulties for
the administration to run the schools properly.
33. We do not think such a submission can have any
legs to stand upon. Whether a person who is seeking
transfer would be transferred or not is a matter for the
21 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
employer to decide and the State can always make
necessary provision discouraging or even preventing such
transfer.
34.As a matter of fact the decision of the Supreme
Court in (2002) 6 SCC 562 (cited supra) is a complete
answer to such imaginary excuses putforth by the State. In
a very recent decision, the Supreme Court has expressed
its grave concern relating to possible balkanization of the
country because of the spread of non-tolerance displayed
in some parts of the country. The submissions which are
now being made by the learned Additional Advocate
General or the counsel for the Interveners bring only to
fore the above unwelcome trend. We do not think that such
a course can ever be countenanced. As a citizen of India
one has to imbibe the spirit of the Constitution and follow
the adage made famous by no less a personality than
Justice Krishna Iyer that “Kashmir to Kanyakumari, India
is one”. However, a reading of the counter filed by the
State Government and the stand so painstakingly putforth
by the learned Addl. Advocate General, though more in
desperation rather than with any conviction, one gets the
feeling that even though Kashmir to Kanyakumari - India
may be one, Dharmapuri to Kanyakumari - Tamil Nadu is
not one. The net result of the policy hitherto followed by
some curious logic is that a duly qualified person, who is
born in one part of the Tamil Nadu and gets himself
registered in the district of his residence, cannot seek
employment under the Government in another district of
22 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
the very same State. If this does not amount to denial of
right to equality under Article 14 and more particularly
Article 16(2) and the right under Article 19(1), we fail to
imagine what else can be the denial of such fundamental
rights.
35. In view of the above discussion, in our
considered opinion, confining the question of selection to
the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange of
a particular district without considering the willingness,
availability and suitability of similar candidates who have
been registered in the other district employment
exchanges, is clearly violative of fundamental rights and,
therefore, cannot be countenanced. The impugned
G.O.Ms.No.447, dated 16.07.1996 is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, a direction is issued to consider the question
of selection of eligible candidates, even though such
candidates' names have been registered in other District
Employment Exchanges. For the aforesaid purpose,
obviously intimation is required to be given to all the
District Employment Exchanges and public advertisement
throughout the State is required to be made so that any
willing candidate even though registered in a different
district can offer his candidature.”
28. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl v. Shrey
Goel, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180, has explicitly held as
follows:
23 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
“25. ....State cannot grant reservation in public
employment on the basis of residence in that State. The
exception carved out under Clause 3 of Article 16,
enables only the Parliament to make a law prescribing a
requirement of residence for State employment. And
there is a reason behind it.”
29. The two Division Bench judgments, in re The Secretary to
Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare and Nutritious Department,
Chennai & Others vs. M. Muthulakshmi & Another, dated 22.03.2017
and in re State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Chandra, W.A. (MD) No. 107 of
2013 along with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, while
addressing the residential criterion of being within 3 kilometers, did not
consider the bar imposed by Article 16(2) of the Constitution, nor did
they recognize that any relaxation in this regard can only be made by
Parliament under Article 16(3). Consequently, the only constitutionally
valid and legally permissible interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.163, Social
Welfare & NMP Department, dated 18.08.2010, concerning the distance
criterion, is that it may serve as a rule of preference when all other
factors are equal. As rightly stated in the counter affidavit, this order is
merely a directory, and the 5th Respondent, having performed well in the
interview, rightfully secured the appointment.
24 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
30. The W.P.(MD) No. 19227 of 2017 is misconceived and has no
merits and accordingly stand dismissed. Consequently WMP (MD) Nos.
15582 & 15583 of 2017 will also stand dismissed. No Costs.
12.02.2025
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
shk/av
To
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Personal Assistant to the District Collector,
(Noon Meal Projects),
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Virudhunagar Panchayat Union,
Virudhunagar District.
4.The Head Master,
Panchayat Union Primary School,
Chinnathathampatti,
Virudhunagar District.
25 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
A.D.MARIA CLETE,J.
Shk/av
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
W.P.(MD).No.19227 of 2017 and
WMP.(MD).Nos.15582 and 15583 of 2017
12.02.2025
26 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 06:05:48 pm )
