← Library
Madras High CourtWP/11503/2020dismissed

B.Vijayaraman v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

2024-12-06Honourable Mr Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.12.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD and W.M.P.No.14057 of 2020 B.Vijayaraman

...Petitioner

-Vs1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Abdul Razaak Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

3.The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Villupuram District.

4.The District Collector, Office of District Collectorate, 5.The Personal Assistant to District Collector (Development), O/o.the Collector Office Campus,

6.The Assistant Director of Rural Development, 7.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Thirukkovilur Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi District. 8.G.Vijayaraman ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 7th respondent appointing the 8th respondent by appointment dated 29.05.2020 to the post of Panchayat Secretary at Eravalam Village pursuant to the notification having reference Na.Ka.No.A5/785/18 dated 09.11.2019 and quash the same and consequently, direct the 4th and 7th respondents to select the petitioner to the said post.

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Jayanthi For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendiran, AGP for R1 to R7 Mr.J.Stalin for R8

ORDER

This writ petition is filed for quashment of the order of the 7th respondent dated 29.05.2020 to the post of Panchayat Secretary at Eravalam Village pursuant to the notification having reference Na.Ka.No.A5/785/18 dated 09.11.2019 and consequently, to direct the 4th and 7th respondents to select the petitioner to the said post.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had applied for the post of Panchayat Secretary of Eravalam Village pursuant to the notification of the 7th respondent dated 09.11.2019 in Na.Ka.No.A5/785/18. Thereafter, the 7th respondent sent a call letter dated 16.12.2019 for interview to be held on 23.12.2019. On 29.05.2020, the 7th respondent has passed the impugned appointment order by selecting the 8th respondent as Panchayat Secretary of Eravalam Village as he has completed graduation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not considered for appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary pursuant to the notification of the 7th respondent dated 09.11.2019 in Na.Ka.No.A5/785/18. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have not furnished the details about the marks allotted to the candidates who attended the interview and so as to know about the genuineness of the selection made by the Selection Committee. Hence, he prayed for quashment of the impugned appointment order passed by the 7th respondent.

4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted a copy of the Interview Team Report, according to which, the name of the petitioner has mentioned in Serial No.3 and he has secured only 10 marks whereas, the successful candidate namely 8th respondent in Serial No12, has secured 21 marks. The marks secured by the 8th respondent is very much high compared with the marks of the petitioner and hence, the 7th respondent has passed the impugned order and the same is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Government. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for either side and upon perusal of the records available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the 7th respondent has passed the impugned order after following the rules and regulations of the Government. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order of the 7th respondent and the writ petition is devoid of merits.

7.In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06.12.2024 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No vkr To 1.The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Directorate of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Abdul Razaak Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

3.The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Villupuram District.

4.The District Collector, Office of District Collectorate, 5.The Personal Assistant to District Collector (Development), O/o.the Collector Office Campus, 6.The Assistant Director of Rural Development, 7.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Thirukkovilur Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi District.

J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD . J, vkr and W.M.P.No.14057 of 2020 06.12.2024