S.Sankari v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE S.Sankari ..
Appellant Vs.
1. The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Integrated Child Development Officer Cuddalore (Villages), Cuddalore.
3. K.Rajalakshmi ..
Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 14.07.2022 in W.P.No.26672 of 2017. For the Appellant :
Ms.Reshmi Christy For the Respondent :
Mr.R.Kumaravel Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Gnanasekar for R3
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 14.07.2022 made in W.P.No.26672 of 2017.
2. In order to appoint Anganwadi Workers at an Anganwadi Centre at Kalaiur village, Cuddalore District, applications were called for. The appellant, the third respondent and others made applications as per G.O.(Ms)No.110, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department dated 14.05.2012, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. As per the notification, only the candidates residing within the same hamlet are given first preference and if there are no candidates available within the same hamlet or village, only then, the other eligible candidates, within the maximum radius of 10 Kms., would be considered.
3. Only on this criteria, based on merits, the third respondent ought to have been selected. However, since the appellant was selected and appointed, the third respondent filed the said writ petition in W.P.No.26672 of 2017, seeking cancellation of the selection and appointment of the appellant, who stood as the third respondent in the said writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge, in fact, by order dated 17.06.2022, directed the first respondent, that is the District Collector, to verify as to whether the residence of the appellant and
the third respondent were situated within the same hamlet at the time of making applications, after issuing notice to them. In furtherance of this order, as per the counter affidavit filed on 13.07.2022, it was stated on behalf of the official respondents that the appellant is a resident of Thirupanampakkam Village, whereas, the writ petitioner, who is the third respondent herein, belongs to the very same Kalaiur Village, where the Anganwadi Centre is located.
5. Having considered these facts, the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the appointment made to the present appellant, who was the third respondent in the writ petition and further directed the official respondents to give appointment to the third respondent, who stood as the writ petitioner, as an Anganwadi Worker in the said Kalaiur Village. This view taken by the learned Single Judge has been fortified with the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of K. Lakshmi vs. District Collector, Cuddalore1.
6. Since this order has been questioned here, we do not find any error in the said approach of the learned Single Judge and the 1 W.A.No.2728 of 2012; Dated: 31.07.2017.
conclusion reached by him. Therefore, the present appeal, on merits, fails and hence, is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.10173 of 2023 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (A.D.M.C., J) 17.03.2025 drm
To:
1. The District Collector Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Integrated Child Development Officer Cuddalore (Villages), Cuddalore.
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND A.D.MARIA CLETE , J.
(drm) 17.03.2025