V.Prabhavathy, v. The District Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-08-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and WMP No. 14699 of 2016 V.Prabhavathy, W/o.Venkatesan, Thamaraipakkam Village, Kanchi Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvanamalai District - 606 702.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector, Tiruvanamalai and District.
2.The Personal Assistant (Nutritious Meal Scheme) to the District Collector, Nutritious Meal Scheme, Tiruvanamalai District.
3.The Block Development Officer Pudhupalayam Post, 4.The Commissioner, 1/6
Puratchi Thalaivar M.G.R. Nutritious Meals Scheme, Pudhupalayam Post, 5.Mrs.M.Vinothini, W/o.Murugan, Thamaraipakkam Village, Kanchi Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvanamalai District-606 702.
Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari mandamus to call for the entire records connected with the impugned order of the 1 st respondent made in Proc.Na.Ka.10791/2014/Sa.u.thi-1 dated 29.02.2016 and quash the same in so far as the 5 th respondent is concerned and consequently, direct the 1 st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Noon Meal Organizer in Panchayat Union Elementary School, Pudupalayam Panchayat, Tiruvannamalai District.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.R.Gobika For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Sentil Murugan (for R1 to R4) Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Writ petition is filed to call for the entire records connected with the 2/6
impugned order of the 1 st respondent made in Proc.Na.Ka.10791/2014/Sa.u.thi-1 dated 29.02.2016 and quash the same insofar as the 5 th respondent is concerned and consequently, direct the 1 st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Noon Meal Organizer in Panchayat Union Elementary School, Pudupalayam Panchayat, Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and holds educational qualifications including SSLC (March 2000), Higher Secondary (June 2003), and B.Lit. in Tamil. She registered her educational qualifications with the District Employment Office, Tiruvannamalai, on 12.07.2000. Pursuant to a call letter from the 4 th respondent vide Na.Ka.No.C1/273/2016 dated 22.02.2016, the petitioner appeared for the interview on 24.04.2016 and submitted all required documents, including proof of education, age, family card, community, income, residence, and non-employment. Despite being qualified and attending the interview, the petitioner was not selected. Instead, the 5 th respondent was appointed. The petitioner contends that this appointment is unjust and based on manipulated scoring.
The petitioner, through an RTI application, obtained information showing she was awarded 26 marks in total. The 5 th respondent, initially awarded 25 marks, had her score altered specifically, the marks under "Knowledge of Noon Meal Scheme and Maintenance of Accounts" were changed from 1 to 3, increasing her total to 27.
The petitioner claims this alteration was made solely to deny her rightful appointment.
3.The Learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 4, submitted that the selection was based on multiple parameters, including educational qualification, proximity to the school, income, marital status, widowhood/destitution, and interview performance. He further submitted that the petitioner (aged 35) was awarded full 8 marks for age; the 5 th respondent (aged 30) received 6. Both candidates had completed SSLC and received the maximum 5 marks for educational qualification. As this was a direct recruitment (not via Employment Exchange), seniority in education held no weight. The interview process was conducted fairly by the selection committee using a matrix based evaluation method. Final scores were compiled and submitted in a formal report.
The petitioner relied upon the preliminary working papers obtained via RTI, instead of the official final report. 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either sides. 5.This Court carefully considered the pleadings on both sides. The petitioner's educational background and social status are not in dispute. The sole contention pertains to the alleged manipulation of interview marks.
petitioner alleges that the 5 th respondent's marks were altered post-evaluation to unlawfully secure the appointment. However, the Court finds no merit in this claim. The correction in marks appears within the scope of assessment, and there is no material evidence to prove malafide intent. Though no representation was made by the 5 th respondent during the proceedings, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes sai To
1. The District Collector, Tiruvanamalai and District.
2.The Personal Assistant (Nutritious Meal Scheme) to the District Collector, Nutritious Meal Scheme, Tiruvanamalai District.
5/6
N.SENTHILKUMAR J.
sai 3.The Block Development Officer Pudhupalayam Post, 4.The Commissioner, Puratchi Thalaivar M.G.R. Nutritious Meals Scheme, Pudhupalayam Post, 5.Mrs.M.Vinothini, W/o.Murugan, Thamaraipakkam Village, Kanchi Post, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvanamalai District-606 702.
and WMP No. 14699 of 2016 22-08-2025 6/6