B.Sumathi, W/O.Prakash, v. The District Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and W.M.P.No.14869 of 2016 B.Sumathi
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Panchayat Union Commissioner, Block Development Officer, Kilpennathur Panchayat Uniion, Thiruvannamalai District.
3.V.Revathi Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in respect of the order dated 29.2.2016 in Na.Ka. No.10791/2014/Sa.Vu.The-1 and quash the same consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as a Noon 1/6
Meal Organiser at Panchayat Union Middle School, Royampettai Village, Kilpennathur Union, Thiruvannamalai District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajagopal For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.E.Indhumathi Government Advocate for R1 No Appearance for R2 R3-Not ready in notice
ORDER
The order of appointment dated 29.02.2016 appointing the 3rd respondent as Noon Meal Organizer at Panchayat Union Middle School, Royampettai Village, Kilpennathur Union, Thiruvannamalai District. is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The petitioner states that she had participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organizer. She appeared before the 2/6
Selection Committee on 21.02.2016 and submitted all the requisite documents and was expecting an order of appointment. While so, the 3rd respondent was appointed as Noon Meal Organizer in violation to the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.163, dated 18.08.2010. 3.Pursuant to the interim directions issued by this Court, the competent authorities conducted measurement regarding the distance between the Noon Meal Centre and the respective residences of the candidates. 4.The learned Additional Advocate General furnished the copy of the mark statement as well as the distance certificate issued by the Block Development Officer. As per the marks awarded by the Interview Committee, the petitioner Smt.Sumathi scored 24 marks and the 3rd respondent Smt.Revathi scored 30 marks.
However, the distance certificate issued by the authorities reveals that the petitioner Smt.Sumathi is residing at the distance of 0.900 Km from the Noon Meal Centre. But, the 3rd respondent Smt.Revathi is residing at the distance of 4.416 Km from the Noon Meal Centre.
guidelines stipulates that the candidates must reside within the radius of 3 Km from the Noon Meal Centre. In the present case, the 3rd respondent is residing beyond the distance of the 3 Km and therefore, she is not eligible for selection and appointment.
5.In view of the facts and circumstances, the order impugned passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings dated 29.02.2016 is quashed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct a fresh selection by following the procedures as contemplated, as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, another in-charge staff take charge of the noon meal centre concerned, the 3rd respondent shall be allowed to continue in the post of noon meal organizer. 6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.11.2022 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order : Yes ssr 4/6
To 1.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Panchayat Union Commissioner, Block Development Officer, Kilpennathur Panchayat Uniion, Thiruvannamalai District.
5/6
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssr and W.M.P.No.14869 of 2016 15.11.2022 6/6