Noorjahan v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA and WMP.No.35429 of 2025 Noorjahan ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissionerate of Social Welfare Lady Willingdon College Campus Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannamalai.
4.The Commissioner/Block Development Officer Chetpet Panchayat Union Thiruvannamalai District.
5.The Headmaster Panchayat Union Primary School Servarapoondi Thiruvannamalai District.
... Respondents 1/8
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceeding in Na.Ka.No.16239/2018/SA U T-1 dated 24.06.2025 passed by the third respondent herein, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Noon Meal Organizer forthwith and give all consequential benefits within a time limit to be specified by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sasikumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader [R1 to R3] Mr.P.Gurunathan Additional Government Pleader for R4
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent on 24.06.2025 in Na.Ka.No.16239/2018/SA U T-1 and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Noon Meal Organizer forthwith and to provide her all consequential benefits, within a time frame fixed by this Court. 2/8
2.1 The case of the petitioner is that she is the permanent resident of Tiruvannamalai District, who had applied for the post of Nool Meal Organizer. She was subsequently selected by proceedings of the first respondent dated 29.02.2016 and was appointed in the third respondent-School. Her appointment was challenged by one Parveen who was also the resident of Tiruvannamalai District. in W.P.No.14132 of 2016, challenging the selection process, in which the petitioner herein was arrayed as fourth respondent. The grounds on which the aforesaid writ petition was filed is that, in G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme Department, dated 18.08.2010, one such condition stipulates that the residence of the candidates applying for the post of Noon Meal Organiser should be within 3 kms.
, whereas violating the distance criteria, the writ petitioner was appointed. 2.2 Pending the writ petition, the proceedings of the first respondent dated 24.06.2025, terminating the service of the petitioner herein came to be passed, stating that as per the aforesaid G.O., the writ petitioner was not eligible for the post of Noon Meal Organiser.
proceedings that the distance between the residence of the petitioner and the 5th respondent-School is 8 kmz. whereas the distance between the residence of Parveen and the 5th respondent-School is 4 kmz., However both the candidates were awarded 5 marks each in the selection process on this criteria, though the residence of Parveen is comparatively at a shorter distance. Therefore, since the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the Rules, her appointment was challenged.
2.3 Thereafter, this Court by an order dated 26.06.2025 has disposed of the said writ petition in W.P.No.14132 of 2016, directing the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, to re-examine the entire selection process . It is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 24.06.2025, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed to the post of Noon Meal Organiser on 29.02.2016 after verifying her records and she had put in 9 years of service now. She is the sole bread-winner of her family. She is also aged 49 years and therefore, she will not be in a position to get employment anywhere else as she was over aged. In such circumstances, the 4/8
impugned order terminating her services without any prior notice, has caused grave hardship to her and also to her entire family. Hence, she seeks to quash the order impugned herein.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Staterespondents would fairly concede that the impugned proceedings was passed without notice to the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and this Court also perused the record.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without going into the merits of the case, sets aside the impugned order of the first respondent dated 24.06.2025, and remits the matter back to the first respondent to consider the case afresh, after issuing notice to the parties concerned and also affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned and thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law. 5/8
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.08.2025 Index : Yes / No ds 6/8
To :
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Commissionerate of Social Welfare Lady Willingdon College Campus Kamarajar Salai Chennai - 600 005.
3.The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District Thiruvannamalai.
4.The Commissioner/Block Development Officer Chetpet Panchayat Union Thiruvannamalai District.
5.The Headmaster Panchayat Union Primary School Servarapoondi Thiruvannamalai District.
7/8
P.T. ASHA, J, ds 25.08.2025 8/8