AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
The petitioner has chosen to challenge the appointment of the third respondent as Anganwadi Assistant in the Centre attached to Thirchittrampalam colony attached to the Tenkasi Taluk.
The contention raised by the petitioner was that while she belongs to the colony and the third respondent belong to the main village as she being closer to the Centre, she should be preferred. Though a reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.203 Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme (SW-7) Department, dated 19.08.2005, the said Government Order does not help the case of the petitioner.
The Government Order only lays down the guidelines. Insofar as a particular centre in a village has concerned, as far as possible, the person in the same village should be appointed. Only if no one was available, the question of preferring a person from other village will arise.
In fact in respect of the arguments addressed by persons belonging to the main village to exclude the persons from the colony from being considered for the post of Anganwadi workers in respect of the Centres which are established in the main village, this Court consistently resisted any such attempt by the village people to exclude the colony people from being considered for the centres situated in the main village as it would amount to discrimination based on caste and creed and prohibited by Article 17 of the Constitution of India.
Subsequently, this Court in the Judgment in D. Pothumallee Vs. The District Collector, The Project Officer for Children Development and V. Thentral, held that since the appointment under the Noon Meal Center is a Public employment, the Government cannot avoid proper reservation in terms of legal provisions relating to reservation in employment in Public and Government Services.
Subsequent to the said Judgment, the State Government has given effect to the order by reserving various centre in respect of communal reservation provided under Act 45 of 1994 made by the State Government. But in the present case, which arose before the cut off date i.e. 07.10.2004 and in the absence of any particular reservation for any center, the petitioner will have to compete with other contesting candidates. But, the grounds raised by the petitioner is a self defeating ground as most of the centres are situated in main villages and not in the colonies.
Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.