Madras High Court
R.Vimala vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its on 26 September, 2025
W.P.No.29273 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 16.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
W.P.No.29273 of 2019
R.Vimala .. Petitioner
vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep by its
Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
Fort St.George
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Town Panchayat
MRC Nagar
Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat
Vellore Zone
Vellore – 9.
4.The Executive Officer
Udhayendhiram Town Panchayat
Vaniyambadi Taluk
Vellore District.
5.Mr.S.Munirathinam
Office Assistant
Udhayendhiram Town Panchayat
Vaniyambadi Taluk
Vellore District. … Respondents
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
W.P.No.29273 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of certiorari mandamus to call for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent herein in his
proceedings Na.Ka.No.109/2017 dated 29.07.2018 and quash the same and
consequently direct the official respondents herein to appoint the petitioner
as Office Assistant in the office of the fourth respondent within a time frame
as deem fit and proper.
For Petitioner : Mr.Stanly Raja Singh
for M/s.G.Bala and Daisy
For Respondents : Mr.V.Veluchamy, AGP for R1 to R4.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the
record.
2. The petitioner by the present writ petition has assailed to action of
the 4th respondent in appointing the 5th respondent as Office Assistant in the
office of the 4th respondent.
3. The petitioner contended that a notification dated 12.01.2018 was
issued by the 4th respondent seeking to undertake recruitment to the post of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
Office Assistant by interview and called upon the interested candidates
meeting the conditions specified therein to submit the documents; that
pursuant to the aforesaid notification oral interview was scheduled on
23.01.2018 at 11.00am, whereat 14 candidates had appeared; that the
interview scheduled on the said date was postponed to 24.01.2018 at
11.00am, as the 3rd respondent who was to be part of the interview
committee was preoccupied; that on the following day i.e., on 24.01.2018,
instead of 14 candidates who had appeared for interview on 23.01.2018,
15 candidates appeared including the 5th respondent who was selected for
the said vacancy; and that the interview was postponed from 23.01.2018 to
the following day only to accommodate the 5th respondent candidate to be
selected, as such, the entire selection process is vitiated.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that while she was sponsored
by the employment exchange, the 5th respondent was not sponsored by
Employment Exchange; that notwithstanding the fact i.e., 5th respondent did
not appear for interview on 23.01.2018, however was allowed to appear for
interview on 24.01.2018 and was declared as selected for the said post and
was issued appointment letter dated 29.01.2018, which action of the 4th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
respondent only goes to show that the entire selection process was stage
managed.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the aforesaid action of the
4th respondent in appointing the 5th respondent was objected to by one
Sri.Rajavelu in the capacity as State President, Tamil Nadu Government All
Department Employee Union by submitting a representation dated
07.03.2019, who thereafter also filed writ petition before this Court vide
WP.No.22285 of 2019 and this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition
only on the ground of locus standi of the said petitioner.
6. It is further case of the petitioner that the selection and appointment
of the 5th respondent to the post of Office Assistant by the 4th respondent is
by ignoring the fact that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for
priority under employment on account of intercaste marriage, in terms of
GO.Ms.No.939 dated 24.09.1986.
7. Petitioner thus, contended that the entire action of the 4th
respondent in appointing the 5th respondent, suffers from lack of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
transparency and also contrary to the G.O. issued and thus, the said
appointment of the 5th respondent is liable to be set aside.
8. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 4th respondent is filed.
9. The 4th respondent by the counter affidavit filed while denying the
averments of the 5th respondent having not applied nor attended the
interview on 23.01.2018, contended that the interview scheduled on
23.01.2018 pursuant to notification dated 12.01.2018 was postponed due to
administrative reasons and the factum of postponement of interview to the
following day i.e., to 24.01.2018 was already announced due to which, the
5th respondent left the office of the 4th respondent without signing the
attendance register on 23.01.2018; and that he however attended the
interview on the following day on 24.01.2018, whereat he was selected for
the post of Office Assistant.
10. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that the petitioner
cannot claim any preference or entitlement on the basis of her intercaste
marriage, since, the vacancy was categorized as general and it was non
priority category, as per the communal roaster.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
11. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended by the respondents
that the claim of the respondents that the interview scheduled on 23.01.2018
was postponed only to accommodate the 5th respondent is incorrect,
inasmuch as the 5th respondent was also registered with employment
exchange on 30.01.2008, while the petitioner had registered with the
employment exchange on 14.03.2017.
12. By the counter affidavit, the respondent further contended that
initially a challenge to the aforesaid selection process was made by a 3rd
party by filing the writ petition in WP.No.22285 of 2019 and he having
failed in his effort, the petitioner chose to file the present writ petition; and
that the petitioner did not choose to make any claim or raise any issue for
1½ years from the date of completion of selection process, as such the writ
petition lacks bonafides and is liable to be dismissed.
13. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
14. Though the petitioner by the present writ petition seeks to assail
the action of the 4th respondent in selecting and issuing the letter of
appointment appointing the 5th respondent to the post of Office Assistant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
dated 29.01.2018, it is to be noted that the present writ petition came to be
filed only on 03.10.2019, after about 1 year 9 months from the date of
completion of the selection process. Further, in the affidavit filed by the
petitioner in support of the writ petition, there is no mention or whisper as
to the why the petitioner could not approach this Court assailing the action
of the 4th respondent in issuing the order of appointment in favour of the 5th
respondent at earliest point of time, if she had found the selection of the 5th
respondent to be vitiated, arbitrary or contrary to the G.Os.
15. It is also not shown to this Court of the petitioner approaching the
respondent authorities and submitting any representation with regard to the
selection process including that of appointing the 5th respondent vide
appointment order dated 29.01.2018. The petitioner instead of herself
approaching the respondent authorities, however chose to remain as mute
spectator and ride piggyback on the representation submitted by one
Rajavelu and also the subsequent writ petition filed by him before this
Court.
16. It is upon this Court dismissing the aforesaid writ petition on
07.08.2019 holding that the petitioner therein has no locus standi to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
question the appointment of the 5th respondent, the petitioner had filed the
present writ petition without substantiating her claim.
17. This Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by Rajavelu
had not only held that the said person as not having locus standi to question
the appointment of 5th respondent, but also observed that the writ petition
appears to be filed with malafide consideration.
18. The filing of the writ petition by Rajavelu would only go to show
that the said writ petition was basically intended to support the case of the
petitioner and having failed in the said effort, the petitioner approached this
Court thereafter without any basis to substantiate her claim of the interview
scheduled on 23.01.2018 being postponed, only to accommodate the 5th
respondent.
19. In so far as, the claim of the petitioner of being required to be
given preference on account of intercaste marriage is concerned, it is to be
noted that the petitioner comes under MBC community, while her husband
is Hindu Adi Dravidar; and that the preference certificate is issued to him to
claim preferential treatment in employment and not to the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
20. It is also to be noted that the cause for filing the present writ
petition is the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent only through
direct interview. The fact that the prevailing unemployment in the country,
the respondent State should ensure that vacancies in Government
Department are filed up by conducting a written exam, may be followed by
a oral interview by a nominal marks and not by recruiting only through
interview. The recruitment through interview was also disapproved by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Assam and others vs. Arabinda
Rabha and others reported in (2025) 7 SCC 705 it is held in Paragraph
No.39 of the judgment as follows:-
“39........However, the right to be considered for public
employment being a fundamental right, it would be safe and
prudent to have recruitment rules to govern the process of
selection so that the best possible talent is appointed in
public service. Obviously, assessing the merit of the
candidates aspiring for public employment on the basis of a
prescribed standard would not only provide a level playing
field for each of them, the excellence of any institution to
which the appointment is to be made would depend directly
on the proficiency of its members/staff and that would, in
turn, depend on the quality and merit of those who offer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
themselves for selection and ultimately get selected,
necessitating the selection to be conducted without any
hidden taint or masked mala fides.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and
others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 it
is held in paragraph 49 of the judgment as follows:
“ 49. The ultimate object of any process of selection
for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the
most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and
favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and
objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and
efficient public service. So, open competitive examination
has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway
to public services. [Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981)
4 SCC 159, para 4 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 588] It is now well
settled that while a written examination assesses a
candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, an interview
test is valuable to assess a candidate's overall intellectual
and personal qualities.”
22. However, as noted herein above, the petitioner having not raised
any objection to the selection of 5th respondent appointment to the post of
Office Assistant and having filed the present writ petition after long lapse of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
time, without substantiating her claim of the 5th respondent not applying to
the said post pursuant to the notification dated 12.01.2018 and being
allowed to take part in the interview on 24.01.2018, after being postponed
from 23.01.2018, cannot be permitted.
23. In view of the above, this writ petition is devoid of merits and
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
26.09.2025
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
tsh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
To
1.State of Tamil Nadu rep by its
Principal Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Director of Town Panchayat
MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat
Vellore Zone, Vellore – 9.
4.The Executive Officer
Udhayendhiram Town Panchayat
Vaniyambadi Taluk
Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
tsh
Order in
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 08:21:53 pm )
