← Library
Madras High CourtWP/21691/2017dismissed

V.Usha, v. The District Collector

2023-06-14Honourable Mr Justice P.B. Balaji6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI W.P.No. 21691 of 2017 V.Usha ... Petitioner

Versus

1.The District Collector Villupuram District.

2.Block Development Officer, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays to issue a Writ of Mandamus, praying to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Noon Meal Scheme Organiser in Na.Ka.No.A6/1588/2016 dated 18.01.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent herein.

For Petitioner : Mrs.R.Sivasankari for M/s.R.Thenmozhi Shivaperumal For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Kumaravel Additional Government Pleader 1/6

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Organiser in Noon Meal Scheme Centre at Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had completed her secondary school education in the year 2001 and she and her husband owned extensive lands at Villupuram District. She further states that as the village did not have proper school building, her husband donated the lands to the District Elementary Educational Officer in the year 2006 by executing a gift deed on 28.08.2006. Thereafter, the school has been constructed and the same has been running successfully. The respondents invited applications for filling up the post of Organizer under Noon Meal Scheme. The petitioner had applied for the said post along with the necessary enclosures like petitioner's qualification certificates, nativity certificate and income certificate. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she possessed all qualifications and 2/6

was entitled to be considered on priority because she had gifted land for the purpose of construction of the school, she was overlooked and some other person was appointed alleging that there is no transparency in the selection process and the petitioner was the only eligible candidate to be appointed for the post. Hence, she sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the school itself came to be constructed only because of the gracious act of the petitioner's family by donating lands for the purpose of development of education sector in her village. Therefore, the petitioner, who had qualified for the post and was found eligible in all respects should have been considered first before any other person.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader referring to proceedings dated 21.06.2017 pointed out that one S.Jayanthi was appointed 3/6

to the said post and moreover, the petitioner was called for an interview and she did not choose to attend the same. There has been no irregularity in the process of appointment and moreover, when the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order of appointment of S.Jayanthi, no orders can be passed in the present writ petition much less a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the Noon Meal Scheme Centre.

6. In view of the above, this Court finds force in the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically mentioned that some other person has been appointed over looking the petitioner. That being the case, the petitioner seeking a mere writ of mandamus, would unfortunately not come to her rescue. The petitioner ought to have impleaded the person so appointed over looking the petitioner and also challenged the appointment of the said person. Without doing so, merely filing a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus and also seeking for positive directions to appoint the petitioner cannot be granted. 4/6

7. With the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

14.06.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order nr To 1.The District Collector Villupuram District.

2.Block Development Officer, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District.

5/6

P.B.BALAJI, J., nr W.P.No. 21691 of 2017 14.06.2023 6/6