S. Manjula vs The District Collector, Child Development Project Officer and K. Sangeetha

N. Paul Vasanthakumar and R. Subbiah, JJ.—This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge made in W.P.(MD) No. 13212 of 2009, dated 02.11.2010 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant.

The Appellant herein appeared for the interview for the post of Mini Anganwadi servant at Sethambal Centre pursuant to the interview call letter dated 16.09.2009 sent by the second Respondent. In the said interview, including the Petitioner totally five candidates had participated. As per the information published in the newspapers, the candidate should possess minimum qualification of S.S.L.C and the age should be between 20 to 35 years and there is some relaxation for widows and destitute in respect of age. Further, the candidates should be within the same village or within 3 kms from the same village. The Appellant is most qualified candidate among all the five in respect of educational qualification, age and seniority in the employment registration. But the first Respondent has appointed the third Respondent vide his proceedings dated 21.11.2009. Aggrieved over the same, the Appellant filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge on consideration of the submissions made on either side, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

According to the Appellant, she is the most qualified person and is having all eligibility criteria to be appointed to the post of Mini Anganwadi servant. But it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent that as per G.O.Ms. No. 186, the candidates for appointment to the post of Mini Anganwadi worker are residing in the same village with the qualification of pass in 10th standard and within age limit of 20 to 35 years are only eligible for the post and also should be a married women. According to the Appellant, she has satisfied all such requirements. But it is the submission of the Respondents that at the time of selection, the Appellant was residing at Pudukkottai village which is 3 kms away from the Sethambal village whereas the third Respondent belonged to the local place where the centre is situated.

In the chart produced by the 2nd Respondent, the following particulars relating to the third Respondent and the Appellant are given:

3rd Respondent Appellant

Date of Birth 15.05.1988 10/7/80

Community Denotified Community B.C.

Qualification Plus two Pass Plus two Pass

Status Married Married

Place of Residence Sethambal Sethambal

Thus, the Appellant is senior in age by eight (8) years.

It is well settled position that the appointment of Anganwadi worker which is a public employment, cannot be based on the residence of the candidate. However, in the instant case, it is seen from the file produced by the second Respondent, in the remarks column, it has been noted parallel to the name of the Petitioner that she belongs to local place( csSh;;). The issue regarding preference based on the village was already considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2007(6) MLJ 402 (P. Vasantha and Ors. v. The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul and Ors.) wherein it is held that giving of such preference based on residents is in violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution. In Paragraphs 17 and 18, it is held thus:

Therefore, 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 edged out of consideration only on the ground that they were not being the residents of the locality.

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.

The said order was approved by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1707/2009 by the Division Bench (HLG, CJ and NPVJ) by judgment dated 01.12.2009. Hence, the action of the Respondents 1 and 2 in selecting the third Respondent only on the basis of her residential parameter without having any other distinguishing factor is definitely in violation of the constitutional provision contained in Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

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 Centre 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 3rd Respondent by affording them opportunity of hearing for the appointment to the post of Mini Angawadi worker at Sethambal Centre, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.