Vennila vs The District Collector and Others

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard both sides.

The petitioner applied for the post of Village Assistant in Thirupatthur taluk and and though she attended the interview, she was not selected and

the 4th respondent, by the impugned order, dated 29.05.2008 informed that the petitioner does not satisfy the qualification qualification prescribed

in G.O.Ms. No. 521 Revenue Ser(VII(2)Department, dated 17.06.1998. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the appointment of others by the

proceedings of the Tahsildhar, the 4th respondent in Na.Ka.A7/15555/06, dated Nil .12.2007 and the other proceedings of the 4th respondent,

dated 29.05.2008.

It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is a native of Gopalapacheri, Piranmalai and she failed S.S.L.C and she registered her name in the

District Employment Exchange on 03.08.1987, in Registration No. W/5508/00. The Government of Tamil Nadu, by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 787,

dated 06.12.2006 proposed to fill up 3674 vacancies of Village Assistant in various Revenue Department in Tamil Nadu and the norms were fixed

under G.O.Ms. No. 429, Revenue (Ser 8(i) Department, dated 08.08.2007. It is further stated that the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 65,

Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.03.2007 shall be followed for filling up the vacancy as per the list already sent by the Employment

Exchange and under G.O.Ms. No. 521 Revenue Ser.VII(2) Department, dated 17.06.1998, VII Department, dated 17.06.1998, the qualification

for the said post was also prescribed and as per G.O.Ms. No. 429 Revenue (Ser 8(1) Department, dated 08.08.2007, the ratio was fixed as 1:5

for the recruitment of 3674 Village Assistants in the State of Tamil Nadu from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per the

seniority in the live register.

According to the qualification, the candidate should have passed 5th standard from a recognised School and she should not have completed 35

years in the case of BC, MBC, de-notified communities, SC or ST and for others maximum age limit is 30. The candidates should know cycling

and would have good character and antecedents and also produced medical fitness certificate.

The petitioner states that she belongs to Schedule Caste community and her employment registration No. is W/5508/00 and she received the

interview letter from the 4th respondent and she also attended the interview on 18.10.2007, by producing all the documents. According to her, her

seniority as per the Employment Exchanger Register is as stated above and as per the list published by the 4th respondent in respect of persons,

who were called for interview, her name was found in S. No. 34. According to her, the Government has given permission for filling up 214 post of

Village Assistants in the Sivagangai District through employment exchange and in respect of Thiruppathur Taluk, 23 posts of Village Assistants

were shown as vacancy and therefore, from Thirupatthur taluk, 23 persons have to be selected for the post of village Assistants. According to her,

for the village Piranmalai, Tirupathur, she is the eligible candidate to be considered as she possesses all other requirements and the said village

Piranmalai is nearer to her native place. She further stated that the post of Village Assistants for the village Piranmalai, is reserved for SC (NP) for

woman and therefore, she is eligible to be considered for that post. Nevertheless, she was not selected and no intimation was also sent from the

4th respondent and therefore, she sent a representation, to the respondents 1 and 2 and there was no reply to the representation. Therefore, she

filed W.P.(MD) No. 3959 of 2008 for direction, directing the first respondent to consider her representation, dated 11.02.2008 and this

Honourable Court was pleaded to direct the first respondent to consider her representation and passed orders. The 4th respondent, without

considering the qualification of the petitioner, issued the impugned order, dated 29.05.2008 stating that appointments were made as per the

G.O.Ms. No. 521, Revenue (Ser(VII(2) Department, dated 17.06.1998 and the petitioner does not satisfy the qualification prescribed in the said

Government Order and therefore, she was not appointed. Therefore, she challenged the said order and also the proceedings of the 4th respondent

in Na.Ka.A7/15555/06, dated Nil. 12.2007, by which others were appointed. The petitioner also challenges the appointment of the respondents 5

and 6.

The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. K.Balasubramanian, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, circulated the para-wise remarks

given by the 4th respondent and submitted that only according to the seniority, the posts were filled up and further contended that the address

given by the petitioner is not correct and she is now residing at Muthu Vaduha Swamy Nagar, Anaikarai Patti and she received her family card and

colour TV on the basis of Anaikarai Patti residence and therefore, by suppressing her correct address, she got nativity certificate as if she belongs

to Piranmalai village. He further contended that she was not considered for appointment as the Revenue Authorities were not sure about the proper

address of the petitioner. The 5th and 6th respondent filed counter stating that they are having required qualifications and therefore, their

candidatures were properly considered and their appointment cannot be challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not selected.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the both counsels.

It is admitted that 23 Village Assistants are to be appointed for the 23 villages in Thirupathur Taluk and for the village Sirumaruthur or S.V.

Mangalam, there is no vacancy. But, it is seen from the list of 23 villages for the village Karaiyur, one woman Village Assistant can be appointed,

who belongs to the SC Community. It is also admitted that the petitioner is having the age and other qualification and her employment registration is

also senior to other candidates considered for appointment . Further, she knew cycling and she satisfies the other qualification prescribed in

G.O.Ms. No. 521, Revenue Ser.VII(2) Department, dated 17.06.1998. Therefore, she is eligible to be considered for appointment for the post of

Village Assistant and her candidature was not considered only on the ground that the Revenue Authorities were not sure about the correct address

of the petitioner. Though, in the impugned order, dated 29.05.2008, no reason has been stated for rejecting her candidature, it is seen from the

para-wise remarks that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the authorities were not sure about her address.

Further, it is not stated that the petitioner is not otherwise qualified for the post of Village Assistant. According to me, the impugned orderer, dated

25.09.2008 is liable to be quashed as it does not give any reason for not selecting the petitioner for that post. When a person has been called for

interview and attended the same and when that person was not selected, the authorities are bound to disclose the reason for not selecting the

petitioner, when it is contended by the petitioner that he/she fulfils all the required qualification and criteria prescribed for that post. As a matter of

fact, in this case, this Honourable Court has directed the 4th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for the appointment of

Village Assistant and as per the direction of this Court, an order was passed on 29.05.2008 and even in that order, it has not been stated the

reason for not considering the petitioner for that post and it has been stated that the petitioner does not satisfy the required qualification. Hence, the

impugned order, is liable to be quashed.

Further, when the authorities raised any doubt about the correct address of the petitioner, then they would have asked to the petitioner to prove

her correct address and without calling upon the petitioner to prove her correct address, they are not entitled to reject her candidature for being

appointed as Village Assistant.

It is admitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. K. Balasubramanian, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 that there were

vacancies in six villages and for that village Karaiyur, the post can be filled from SC candidate. Further, as held by our Honourble High Court in the

reported Judgement Union of India (UOI) Vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal and Sindhu Jayarajan, ""the residential requirement is not

relevant for the purpose of public employment and it also violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, when the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be considered for appointment, she can be appointed in the vacancy available. Though the

petitioner prayed for appointment of Village Assistant in S.V. Mangalam or Srirumaruthur village, the Village Assistants were appointed for those

two villages and for SC candidates, one person can be appointed for the village Karaiyur.

Further, according to me, the 4th respondent also cannot reject the petitioner on the ground that she is not native of Thirupathur Taluk.

Admittedly, she has produced the nativity certificate and interview call letter was sent to her address in Thirupathur Taluk and in the absence of any

other valid proof that she does not reside in Thirupathur Taluk, her candidature should not have been rejected by the 4th respondent. Therefore,

the 4th respondent is directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant for the village Karaiyur. During the

pendency of the writ petition, there was an order to keep one post vacant. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner, while pronouncing the judgment, that the respondents 1 to 4 have called for applications to fill up vacancies in Thirupathur taluk. Hence,

the respondents 1 to 4 are directed to keep one post vacant till the petitioner is considered for appointment in any of the vacancies in any of two

villages of Thiruppthur Taluk as stated above.

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.