P. Shanthi v. Thesecretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and WMP.No.35757 of 2025 1.P.Shanthi 2.S.R.Sundaravalli 3.R.Maniyammal 4.I.Leelavathi 5.Chandirakani 6.Rajam 7.S.Ebenezer Gnanabai Sugirthakani 8.K.Light Rose Lilly 9.R.Vijayakumari 10.S.Nagalakshmi 11.M.Ganapathyammal 12.Haja Uma 13.S.Kalyani 14.Arumugam 15.S.Sankrammal Mala 16.J.Seetha 17.S.Chandra 18.S.Vasanthi
19.S.Seethalakshmi 20.C.Parameswari 21.S.Gandhimathi 22.B.Jeyalakshmi 23.S.Sumathi 24.E.K.Charumathi 25.Amaravathi 26.S.Sarala 27.M.Dhanavalli 28.S.Krishnaveni 29.S.Vijayalakshmi 30.T.Suseela 31.N.Jeyanthi 32.G.Prema ... Petitioners Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005 3.V.Vijaya 4.G.B.Kowsalya 5.R.Hema 6.K.S.Saroja 7.P.Neela
8.A.C.Amirtham 9.C.Janet Bai 10.S.Vijayalakshmi 11.P.Usha 12.B.Sreekumari Amma 13.P.Shenbagasaratha 14.N.Shanmugavalli 15.S.Kaveri 16.S.Radhamani 17.D.Vathsala Christopher 18.S.Priyadharshini 19.V.Ayyammal 20.M.Thahira 21.S.Revathy 22.K.Kokila 23.K.Saratha 24.S.Subbulakshmi 25.P.Mohana 26.R.Muthulakshmi 27.K.Vijayalakshmi 28.S.Sagunthala 29.A.Ulagammai 30.S.Valli 31.A.Fathima Kuzhanthai Theresa 32.S.Paul Thangam
33.J.Prbhavathi 34.E.Parimala 35.P.Devaki 36.V.Kalamaheshwari 37.K.Lalitha 38.A.Chithra 39.K.Baby Sundari 40.S.Esther Leela 41.V.Kanchana 42.V.Rekha 43.C.Mahalakshmi 44.K.K.Santhi 45.R.Muruga Jothi 46.S.Lakshmi 47.P.Nagarathinam 48.R.Sathyavani 49.C.Prema 50.D.Vidhya Prabha .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connecting with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(3D).No.03, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW-1) Department dated 28.02.2011 and quash the same in so far as the respondents 3 to 50 are concerned and consequently direct the 1st respondent to promote the petitioners herein in their place.
For Petitioners : Mr.Rengaramanujam For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Ganesan Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who have been working in the post of Supervisor Grade I in Child Development Project Officer challenging the orders issued in G.O.(3D).No.03, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme (SW-1) Department dated 28.02.2011, whereby the postings were issued in favour of private respondents herein posting them as Child Development Project Officer at different places. 2.
The basis for the filing the present writ petition is that the respondents while issuing the impugned order violated the rules governing the post of Child Development Project Officer vide G.O.No.1251, Social Welfare Department dated 24.07.1987 as amended from time to time including the amendment carried out through G.O.Ms.No.22, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 03.03.2003 especially Rule 3(1) of the said Rules governing the post of Child Development Project Officer and Zonal Project Nutrition Officer.
3.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in all 176 posts of Child Development Project Officer were filled up through the impugned order, and in terms of Rule 3(1), the Superintendents working in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service in Social Welfare Department are entitled only for 16.07% of the posts. But, whereas the said category was given more than 25% of the posts out of 176 posts. It is also further contended that the respondents failed to follow the rotation provided under the proviso to Rule 3(1) of the above said Rules.
4.
The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the respondents have strictly followed the rotation provided under proviso to Rule 3(1), and accordingly issued orders in G.O.(Ms).No.26 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW-1) Department dated 28.02.2011 and the impugned proceedings is only a consequential proceedings issuing necessary posting orders in favour of the persons whose appointments were finalized through G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011. 5.
Having taken note of the said contention raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the petitioners have filed an application
in W.M.P.No.35757 of 2025 seeking to amend the prayer in the main writ petition duly enlarging the scope of the writ petition and seeking to challenge the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011 as well. 6.
This Court, after having heard Mr.R.Rengaramanujam learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Ganesan, learned Additional Government Pleader, does not see any reason to consider this matter in elaborate for the following reasons:
7.
The G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011 was issued as early as in the year 2011 that is about 14 years back and the impugned order issued by the Government also makes a specific reference to the said G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011. For the reasons best known, the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011 while filing the present writ petition, but filed an application to amend the prayer in the year 2025. In the considered view of this Court, such a belated application seeking amendment of prayer, by bringing the proceedings back to square one at this length of time, cannot be permitted.
8.
Be that as it may, this Court also examined the grounds on which the petitioners intend to challenge the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011. It is not in dispute that the official respondents have followed the rotation provided under proviso to Rule 3(1) while issuing appointment orders through G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011 in favour of the private respondents herein. Once the rotation is followed as per under the proviso to Rule 3(1), it cannot be said that the 50% quota earmarked for the Superintendent Grade I to which the petitioners belong to has not been followed.
9.
Admittedly, out of 176 posts which were filled up through G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011, 128 posts have been filled up from the category of Superintendent Grade I or Superintendent in Working Women's Hostel to which the petitioners herein belong to. However, the grievance is sought to be ventilated on the ground that the Superintendents working in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service in Social Welfare Department are accommodated in more vacancies as against the 16.07% earmarked for them under Rule 3(1), and approximately 27.27% of the posts out of 176 have been allocated in favour of the said category. Once the 50% posts earmarked for
the category to which the petitioners herein belong to have been filled, the petitioners herein cannot have any grievance, in case if the other category candidates are accommodated more. Even in the instant case, as against the 27.27% of the vacancies provided for the category-III, the petitioners herein were provided with more than 70% of the vacancies. Thus, the category to which the petitioners herein belong to, as well as the Category-III people are beneficiaries of the impugned order.
10.
From the material on record, it is evident that the category of the petitioners and the third category have been encroached into the direct recruitment quota provided under Category-1 and Rule 3(1). Merely because, the third category is accommodated in more than the quota earmarked for them, that will not give rise to a cause of action for the petitioners to make a claim for accommodating them in more number of vacancies. Once the quota earmarked for the petitioners to the category which the petitioners herein belong to is fulfilled, the petitioners cannot have any grievance . 11.
Be that as it may, as already noted above, the petitioners have not chosen to challenge the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011
while filing the present writ petition. As this Court is not inclined to permit amendment of the prayer at this length of time, the writ petition which was filed challenging the impugned consequential order alone issued by the respondents consequent upon the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.02.2011 cannot be entertained and this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition.
12.
Accordingly, W.P.No.13249 of 2011 and W.M.P.No.35757 of 2025 are dismissed. No costs.
20.08.2025 dpa Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director, Social Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
dpa 20.08.2025