R.Bakkiyam v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.11.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P. No.28341 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.30446 of 2017 R.Bakkiyam .. Petitioner Vs.

The District Collector, O/o The Collectorates Office, Cuddalore District 2.

The Child Development Project Officer, Child Development Project Office, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District Amusavalli .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the selection list to online copy in so far as Serial No.450, Veerasingankuppam South Anganwadi centre is concerned, which was issued by the 1st respondent to the post of Noon Meal Organizer in favour of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Noon Meal Organizer in Veerasingankuppam South Centre, Cuddalore District in the light of G.O.(Ms) No.110 issued by Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department and pass further orders. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Thirumoorthy For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan for R1and R2 Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of appointment of the 3rd respondent, only on the ground that the petitioner should be considered for the post of Noon Meal Organizer at Veeerasingankuppam South Street, Cuddalore District, as she is residing in the same village, whereas, the 3rd respondent, who is residing away from the petitioner's village was appointed.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record.

3. The said prayer mentioned supra has been dealt with by this Court in humpty number of cases. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Veerasingankuppam, hence as a matter of right, she should be considered for the post of Noon Meal organizer, excluding the other candidates, but, consequently, the petitioner, is not able to make out a case that she has superior merits than the 3rd respondent, who was appointed. 4.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sought for more particulars under Right to Information Act to establish before this Court that she has superior merits than 3rd respondent, who was appointed, till date, the petitioner has not received any information. 5.

When the petitioner has come before this Court without even collecting the requisite informations in support of her prayer, it is not known how the petitioner can expect this Court to pass an order in her favour. That apart, the petitioner has taken part in the selection process therefore, now, she cannot turn around and challenge the notification. When the appointment order of the 3rd respondent clearly mentions that the 3rd respondent belongs to North Street Colony, Melkageyam Kuppam, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has given a wrong address, as if she belongs to Veerasingankuppam, is not acceptable.

6. In view of the aforesaid foregoings, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssd To The District Collector, O/o The Collectorates Office, Cuddalore District

2.

The Child Development Project Officer, Child Development Project Office, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District +1cc to Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, Advocate, S.R.No.79113 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.79287 W.P. No.28341 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.30446 of 2017 CS/22/11/17