AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, praying for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for calling
records forming part of the impugned recruitment notice No. Nil, dated 30.11.2010, issued by the 2nd Respondent (which calls for applications
for appointment of Anganwadi Worker under BC category for Kolathur Anganwadi Center) and quash the same so far as the proposal to appoint
an Anganwadi Worker for the Kolathur Anganwadi Centre at Kolathur Village, Anarkkonam Taluk, Vellore District and pass any such further or
other order or orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
In the affidavit, in support of the prayer made, the pleaded case of the Petitioner is that the averments made by the Petitioner in W.P. No. 6435
of 2007 and Contempt Petition No. 1454 of 2010, be read part and parcel of this writ petition.
The Petitioner claims to have passed higher secondary course in March, 1998. The Government issued a G.O. Ms. No. 74 dated 12.07.2006,
to open 3049 new Anganwadi Centres in all the Districts in the State except in Tirunelveli, Chennai and Krishnagiri Districts.
In the Government Order, 3049 of Anganwadi workers and 3049 posts of Anganwadi Helpers were accorded.
In order to fill up the posts, applications were called for from eligible candidates for filling up 4520 new posts. In the native District of Petitioner,
171 posts of Anganwadi workers and 179 Anganwadi Helpers together 350 posts, were to be filled up by interview. The Petitioner fulfilled the
qualification and thus is eligible for appointment.
It is the further case of the Petitioner that the second Respondent / District Collector is the authority to fill up the above posts through a District
Level Committee. The final recommendations of the District Committee are to be approved by the District Collector.
In the village of the Petitioner, two posts were to be filled up, and that the Petitioner was one of the candidates for the post of Anganwadi
worker. Interview was held on 15.11.2006. The Petitioner, being member of Schedule Caste community and native of local village Kolathur, was
more meritorious than Mrs. Brinda / 5th Respondent. In spite of this, Petitioner was not selected, whereas, in pursuance to selection, the 5th
Respondent joined as Anganwadi Worker at Kolathur on 10.01.2007.
The case of the Petitioner is that selection was not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of arbitrariness and unlawfulness. Furthermore, the 5th
Respondent claimed to be belonging to Scheduled Caste community, though she is a Christian. The Petitioner filed a W.P. No. 6435 of 2007,
seeking fresh selection for the post, by cancelling the appointment of the 5th Respondent.
The further case of the Petitioner is that while admitting the writ petition, an interim direction was issued to consider the case of the Petitioner for
appointment. After passing interim order by this Court, the impugned notice has been issued, inviting applications for filling up posts of Anganwadi
workers in the District.
The Petitioner challenges the impugned notice, by pleading as under:
I submit that as per the norms of the appointment, the 2nd Respondent ought to have appointed me being a local village candidate. In a similar
case in W.P. No. 16318 of 2009 on 26.10.2009, this Hon''ble Court was pleased to direct the appointment of similar affected candidate namely
C. Usha of Vellore District by setting aside the earlier appointment of her rival candidate. Hence, the 2nd Respondent ought to have considered
my representation dated 10.10.2009 and ought to have issued appointment order in my favour by cancelling the illegal appointment of the 5th
Respondent. However, the 2nd Respondent did not do so only in order to disobey the lawful orders of this Hon''ble Court and to help those
whom the 2nd Respondent likes according to his own whims and fancies without following the norms of appointment. The main writ petition is
pending disposal. Therefore, I filed a contempt petition in Cont.P. No. 1454 of 2010 and the same is pending disposal before this Hon''ble Court
and a private notice dated 03.11.2010 was sent to the 5th Respondent District Collector Mr. S. Rajendran IAS, who continues to function as the
District Collector (the 2nd Respondent herein) till date.
The case of the Petitioner is that the post of Anganwadi worker in village of the Petitioner, has been reserved for Backward Class, whereas,
on earlier occasion, this was reserved for Scheduled Caste. This was due to malafide, unlawful and arbitrary action of the second Respondent, as
the writ Petitioner has filed contempt petition, which is pending in this Court and notice is also issued in the said petition.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th Respondent has contested in this writ petition, by placing reliance on the judgment of the
Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in Tmt. Tamilselvi v. C. Usha and Ors. W.A. No. 1707 of 2009, decided on 01.12.2009.
The Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, has been pleased to lay down as under:
If we look at the notification dated 23.12.2008 issued by the District Collector concerning the appointment of Noon Meal Organiser, amongst
the educational qualifications, it is clearly stated that the person has to have passed the X Standard Examination. In the event of non-availability of
a person, who has passed the X Standard Examination, a person who has failed the X Standard Examination would be selected, as can be seen
from Clause (a) of this Notification. Clause (b) of the Notification provides for the age - there is no doubt that both the candidates are within the
age group stipulated in the Notification. Clause (c) of the Notification provided that the applicant should be in the village where the Noon Meal
Centre is located. However, the said clause makes it clear that if no suitable candidate is available, the candidate who is a resident of another
village of the same Panchayat would be considered. Not only that, it is also made clear that if a candidate is not available from the Panchayat area,
a candidate who is a resident within ten kilometers thereof would be considered. Thus, as can be seen from these qualifications criteria, residence
of a candidate in the particular village is not so mandatory. It can be relaxed in favour of a person who is a resident in the same Panchayat area,
provided that candidate is a preferable candidate.
The Committee concerned has gone into all these aspects. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Block Development Officer before the
learned Single Judge, where he has placed all these facts before the learned Single Judge. In our opinion, in view of all these facts having been
placed before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge was not expected to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities
concerned. The Court does have the power to interfere where some perverse decision is arrived at by the authorities concerned. But, that is not
the case here. It is not that in each and every matter, depending on one''s views that one should interfere with the administrative decisions taken by
the authorities concerned.
In this context, we may profitably refer to a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the case of P. Vasantha v. District
Collector, Dindigul District (2007) 6 M.L.J. 402, where the learned Single Judge has observed that preference based upon the locality is only a
preference and not a basic qualification and if preference has been extended solely based upon the residence of a candidate to the exclusion of
other criteria, the same will be hit by Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
For the reasons aforementioned, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the first
Respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 is closed.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contends that judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court is not applicable to the
facts of the case in the alternative it supports the case of the Petitioner, as her claim for appointment is to be considered on preferential basis. The
impugned notice, therefore, deserves to be quashed, as the right of preferential consideration is lost, by making her ineligible to be considered for
the post at Village, where she belongs.
On consideration, I find no force in the writ petition. The reading of Paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit of Petitioner shows that the Petitioner is
seeking right of appointment on the basis of residence in the village, which duly gives her preferential right for consideration to the post.
The Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court has held that reservation on the basis of residence would be hit by Article 16(2) of the Constitution
of India, therefore, the Government Order, on which, reliance is placed by the Petitioner, does not give any right to appointment merely on the
basis of resident. She cannot challenge the notice, issued for appointment, as she has no vested right for appointment. In view of judgment, passed
by the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court, if any application is made by the Petitioner, that would be considered against the posts, to which she
is found eligible on the basis of merit. The Petitioner does not have a legal right to claim that the post in her village is to be reserved only for
scheduled caste category and no other. The challenge of the Petitioner to notice inviting applications for filling the post is, therefore, totally
misconceived. The allegations of malafide are also totally vague and do not inspire confidence. In absence of any enforceable right, the Petitioner
has no locus standi to maintain this writ.
Consequently, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed and Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.