The District Collector v. S Kokila

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.06.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDER and C.M.P.No.13457 of 2025 The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District.

... Appellant Vs.

1.S.Kokila 2.Chetpet Panchayat Union, Rep. by its Commissioner, Chetpet Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 21.11.2023 made in W.P.No.31959 of 2023. For Appellant : Mr.P.Ananda Kumar, Government Advocate For Respondents : Mr.P.Ganesan, for Mr.M.Sasikumar

J U D G M E N T

1/5

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) We see no merit in this appeal. Challenge in the Writ Petition was to the rejection of the petitioner's name for employment as a noon meal Organizer in the Chetpet Panchayat Union, on the ground that her husband was working as a Driver in the Chetpet Panchayat Union itself.

2. In fact, the petitioner had applied and had participated in the selection process for appointment of noon meal Organizer in the very same Panchayat Union conducted on 18.07.2012. Though she was originally appointed, she was orally terminated on the very next day of her joining duty. This was challenged by the respondent in W.P.No.34613 of 2013. This Court while dismissing the Writ Petition, observed that the petitioner can apply whenever a vacancy arises in future. Since the vacancy arose, the petitioner sought for appointment. By the impugned proceedings the District Collector refused to consider her application on the ground that her husband was employed in the same Panchyat Union in a permanent post.

3. The learned Single Judge has observed that no Rule or Government Order has been produced to show that such a dis-qualification 2/5

exists. Even before us, the learned Government Advocate is unable to produce any Rule or Notification imposing restriction on spouses of a serving Government servants from applying for the post of noon meal Organizer.

4. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the conclusions of the Writ Court. The appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

5. The learned Government Advocate has also produced the proceedings of the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, dated 06.06.2025, which demonstrate that the order of the learned Single Judge has been complied with under threat of the contempt.

(R.S.M.,J.) (K.S.,J.) dsa 20.06.2025 Index : No : No Speaking order 3/5

To 1.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Commissioner, Chetpet Panchayat Union, Chetpet Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District.

4/5

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and K.SURENDER , J.

dsa 20.06.2025 5/5