Madras High Court
J.B.Jaya Bayola vs The District Collector on 21 July, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.1467 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 16.07.2025
Pronounced On : 21.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P. (MD) No.1467 of 2017
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2017
J.B.Jaya Bayola,
W/o.Paulraj (Late),
Kothachanvilai Veedu,
Kalluttankuzhi,
Kollancode Post,
Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.
2.The Personal Assistant to Collector,
Puratchi Thalaivar MGR Nutritious Meals Programme,
Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.
3. The Head Master.
Sridevi Primary School,
Kollemcode,
Munchirai Panchayat Union,
Kanyakumari District.
4. K.Ajithkumari,
W/o.J.Shaji (Late),
Kumbalamtheri Veedu,
Chuzhal, Palavilai Post,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 05:57:00 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.1467 of 2017
PRAYER in W.P.:
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ to call for
the records of the impugned appointment order passed by the 1st
respondent herein in his proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.A1/1862/2016 dated
13.06.2016 in favour of 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to appoint the petitioner as
Noon Meal Organiser in 3rd respondent School on the basis of the
certificate verification conducted to the petitioner on 11.06.2016 and
pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
PRAYER in W.M.P.(MD)No.1176 of 2017 :
To stay the proceedings of the impugned appointment order passed by
the 1st respondent herein vide Na.Ka.No.A1/1862/2016 dated 13.06.2016
in favour of 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and
consequently direct the 1st respondent pending disposal of the main writ
petition and thus render justice.
PRAYER in W.M.P.(MD)No.1177 of 2017 :
To pass an order of interim direction, directing the 1st respondent herein
to keep one post of Noon Meal Organiser vacant in Kanyakumari
District, pending disposal of the main writ petition and thus render
justice.
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 05:57:00 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.1467 of 2017
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Brinda
for Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 to R3
: R4 - Died
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. The writ petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the appointment order passed by the first respondent
in Na.Ka.No.A1/1862/2016 dated 13.06.2016 appointing the 4th
respondent as Noon Meal Organiser in the third respondent school and to
direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner instead, based on the
certificate verification conducted on 11.06.2016.
3. It is not disputed that the petitioner had participated in the
certificate verification process conducted on 11.06.2016. The petitioner
claims that she is a destitute widow belonging to the same Panchayat
where the third respondent school is situated, and that she was fully
eligible under the relevant guidelines. Her grievance is that the 4th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 05:57:00 pm )
respondent, who allegedly belongs to a different Panchayat, was appointed
in violation of the distance criterion laid down under G.O.(Ms.)No.163,
Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010.
4. The petitioner’s primary contention rests on the fact that she
resided within the same Panchayat and within close proximity to the
school, approximately ¼ kilometer, whereas the 4th respondent, who was
appointed, hailed from another Panchayat. The petitioner claims this
violates the stipulation under G.O.(Ms.)No.163, which stipulated selection
of local candidates residing within a three-kilometer radius of the Noon
Meal Centre.
5. The G.O.(Ms.)No.163 dated 18.08.2010 introduced a
distance-based preference for appointment, purportedly for administrative
efficacy. This Court in Anusha Malarvizhi v. The District Collector in
W.P.(MD) No.19227 of 2017, dated 12.02.2025, while drawing attention
to the judgment of the Apex Court, this Court engaged in Article 16(2),
which prohibits discrimination in public employment on the ground of
residence and interrogated the indirect barriers such distance criteria
impose on marginalised group thus:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 05:57:00 pm )
“ 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:
“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….”
6. In the present case, the records disclose that the 4th respondent
was appointed on 13.06.2016 and had continued in service thereafter. It is
now brought to the notice of this Court that she passed away on
08.09.2024. This development does not render the writ petition abated as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 05:57:00 pm )
the challenge pertains to a public appointment. The learned Additional
Government Pleader has, in the counter affidavit, clarified that the
selection process was conducted pursuant to a duly notified recruitment, in
which 47 applications were received and 40 candidates, including the
petitioner and the fourth respondent, attended the oral test held on
07.03.2016. The fourth respondent, Tmt. K. Ajithkumari, a 38 years old
widow with a mentally retarded daughter, was appointed as Noon Meal
Organiser in the third respondent school after being found qualified in all
respects and suitable for the post. The selection was made based on her
performance in the oral interview and taking into account her vulnerable
social circumstances. It is not the petitioner’s case that she was more
meritorious or scored higher marks in the selection process. The 4 th
respondent having performed well in the interview, rightfully secured the
appointment. The Writ Petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and
is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
21.07.2025
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 05:57:00 pm )
To
1. The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.
2.The Personal Assistant to Collector,
Puratchi Thalaivar MGR Nutritious Meals Programme,
Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil.
3. The Head Master.
Sridevi Primary School,
Kollemcode,
Munchirai Panchayat Union,
Kanyakumari District.
4. K.Ajithkumari,
W/o.J.Shaji (Late),
Kumbalamtheri Veedu,
Chuzhal, Palavilai Post,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 05:57:00 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
21.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 05:57:00 pm )
