← Library
Madras High CourtWP/25900/2010dismissed

P.Santhi v. The Collector

2021-12-13Honourable Mr Justice P.D.Audikesavalu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.12.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU W.P. No. 25900 of 2010 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 P.Santhi ... Petitioner -vs1. The Collector, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

2. Uma ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the First Respondent in Na.Ka. No. 26040/09/X-1 dated 14.09.2010 and quash the same and direct the First Respondent to appoint the Petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in the place of the Second Respondent with effect from the date of the impugned order and grant all consequential benefits.

For Petitioner :

Mr. P.Manoj Kumar For Respondents :

Mrs. E.Ranganayaki, Additional Government Pleader (for R1) Mr. V.Anand (for R2)

O R D E R

The Petitioner challenges Order in Na.Ka. No. 26040/09/X-1 dated 14.09.2010 passed by the First Respondent appointing the Second Respondent in the post of Noon Meal Organiser and consequently direct the First Respondent to appoint the Petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in the place of the Second Respondent with effect from the date of the impugned order and grant all consequential benefits.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Second Respondent was given preference in appointment based on her age. However, the First Respondent has filed Counter-Affidavit denying the said contention and has pointed out that the husband of the Petitioner was already working as Noon Meal Organiser in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Harur, and relying on the Government Letter No. 25704/NMP-I/92-2 dated 29.06.1992, in terms of the policy of giving employment for only one person for one family, the Petitioner was not selected. Having regard to the aforesaid reason explained, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the selection of the Second Respondent.

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vjt/skr To

1. The Collector, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

+1cc to Mr.Rajendran, Advocate, S.R.No.66361 +1cc to Mr.Anand, Advocate, S.R.No.66671 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.67088 W.P. No. 25900 of 2010 MG(CO) SU(21/12/2021) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/