Susila vs The District Collector, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin, The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District and J.Geetha Selvi

Honourable MR. Justice K. Chandru

The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Noon Meal Organizer. She has applied for the said post and also participated in the selection held for the R.C. Primary School Centre at Aladithattu, Mudhalur Panchayat. When the petitioner found that the 3rd respondent was selected by the selection committee and recommended by the District Collector for appointment, she filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge her appointment, dated 01.09.2007 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to appoint her as a Noon Meal Organizer in the said centre coming under Sathankulam Panchayat Union.

This Court, when the matter came up on 23.10.2007, ordered Notice of Motion and granted interim stay for a period of four weeks. Subsequently, there is nothing on record to show that the interim order has extended. Aggrieved by the interim order, a vacate stay application has been filed by the official respondents 1 and 2 in M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2008 together with a supporting counter affidavit, by the Commissioner Panchayat Union Sathan Kulam, dated 21.10.2007. In the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim stay no order has been passed. The respondents have also filed a typed set of papers containing the mark assigned by the interview committee and also produced a copy of the G.O.Ms. No. 4, Social Welfare Department, Noon Meal Scheme, dated 05.01.2007.

The contention raised by the petitioner was that she belonged to Scheduled Caste Community and she is disabled person and the 3rd respondent was not residing in the same village. The norms of selection in terms of Government Order has not been produced. Though the petitioner coming under priority category, she was not selected. In the counter affidavit filed, these allegations are denied. It was stated that the petitioner''s income having less than Rs. 10,800/-. is not a criteria for selection and G.O.Ms. No. 4, Social Welfare Department, Noon Meal Scheme, dated 05.01.2007, only provides for selection to be made on the basis of educational qualification, age limit, reservation and also the residential distance from the centre. The allegations that the petitioner alone the resident of Mudhalur Village was denied and it was stated that the 3rd respondent is also a resident of the same Village. She also lives within half a kilometer from the centre. It was further stated that the selection committee observed all formalities, including the guidelines framed by the State Government under G.O.Ms. No. 4, Social Welfare Department, Noon Meal Scheme, dated 05.01.2007.

A perusal of G.O.Ms. No. 4, Social Welfare Department, Noon Meal Scheme, dated 05.01.2007, referred to by the petitioner does not show that any such preference is given to the priority category. All that the G.O. states was that the selecting authority in respect of filling up 19,745 posts in various centers both under the Noon Meal Scheme as well as under ICDS Scheme should observe the age restriction, educational qualification, communal roster and the distance from the centers. The selection committee should consider these on the basis of the application received.

A perusal of the recommendations made by the committee, signed by the Commissioner, Panchayat Union and the correspondence of the School as well as Personal Assistant (NMP) to the District Collector shows that the committee recommended the names of the candidates including the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and one C. Vijaya Lakshmi and it is found that the 3rd respondent has also living in the same village within half a kilo meter, as that of the petitioner and while in terms of date of birth, the 3rd respondent is senior and both of them are having same educational qualifications. In the column it is recorded that the petitioner was disabled person with 70% disability other than that there is no further recommendation made in favour of the petitioner.

It is pursuant to the said recommendation, the impugned order of appointment came to be made in favour of the 3rd respondent by the order of the District Collector, Thoothukudi, dated 01.09.2007. In the absence of the petitioners contention that she has a priority category in terms of her grounds raised in para 12(iv) not being reflected in the Government Order under the post being filled up, the petitioner''s contention cannot be accepted. She having participated in the selection process and the selection committee has forwarded three names and the District Collector has chosen to appoint the 3rd respondent and