← Library
Madras High CourtWA/2436/2024dismissed

Jeevitha v. The Collector

2024-09-09Honourable The Acting Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice P.B. Balaji9 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.09.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI Jeevitha .. Appellant Vs 1.The Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

2.The Block Development Officer (Block Panchayats) Palacode, Dharmapuri District.

3.Sathiya .. Respondents Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33040 of 2017.

For the Appellant : Mr.K.Selvarangan For the Respondents : Mr.S.Yashwanth Addl. Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.33040 of 2017 by the learned Single Jude dismissing the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the appellant to quash the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the first respondent and to appoint the appellant as Noon Meal Organiser, Panchayat Union Primary School, Karagathahalli, in the place of the third respondent with effect from 13.11.2017 and grant her all consequential benefits.

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant has not established any plausible ground for the purpose of considering the relief prayed for by her. Assailing the same, the present writ appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the local resident of Karagathahalli, whereas the third respondent is a resident of Kartharapatti, which is at a distance of 4 kms. As per G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 16.8.2010, for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organiser, the distance between the candidate's residence and the place of appointment should be within 3 kms. Since the appellant is residing within 3 kms., she should be considered for the said post. On the contrary, the first respondent appointed the third respondent, who is residing far away, as Noon Meal Organiser at Panchayat Union Primary School, Karagathahalli.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to note that the appellant was awarded lesser marks qua knowledge about the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme, though she had performed well in the interview, whereas the third respondent, who did not perform well and had not answered the questions posed by the Selection

Committee, was awarded 9 marks in the interview, which is arbitrary and only due to political influence, the third respondent has been appointed. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of the Single Judge.

6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant scored 40 marks and the third respondent scored 42 marks and the selection has been made based on merits, after taking note of the fact that the residence of the third respondent is within the radius of 3 kms.

7. The primordial contention of the appellant is that the appellant is residing within the radius of 3 kms., whereas the third respondent is residing far away from the Noon Meal Centre. Therefore, the order of appointment issued in favour of the third respondent is liable to be set aside and the appellant should be considered for the said post in the place of the third respondent.

8. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed as under:

"4. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent submitted the original files pertaining to the award of marks by the Selection Committee. The file reveals that the petitioner Smt.Jeevitha scored 40 marks and the 3rd respondent/Smt.Sathiya scored 42 marks. Marks were awarded under the different heads.

5. This Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the marks awarded to the candidates, who participated in the process of selection. That apart, the Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Union, Palakode issued a certificate pursuant to the interim direction issued by this Court regarding the distance between the centre and the residence of the respondent. As per the said certificate, the petitioner is residing at the distance of 194 meters from the Centre and the 3rd respondent is residing 1842 meters from the Centre. Therefore, both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are residing within the radius of 3 kms and thus, there is no infirmity in respect of considering the candidates for selection and

appointment tot he post of Noon Meal organiser."

9. It appears that 21 candidates attended the interview and the third respondent, who earned highest marks, was selected in consonance with the norms laid down vide G.O.Ms.No.163, dated 16.8.2010. The total marks earned by the appellant is 40, whereas the third respondent earned 42 marks.

10. It is not the case of the appellant that the entire selection process is mala fide and contrary to law. As stated supra, the only contention of the appellant is that the third respondent is residing far away from the Centre in question, whereas the appellant is residing within the radius of 3 kms from the Centre.

11. In the impugned order, the learned Singe Judge recorded that the appellant is residing at the distance of 194 meters from the Centre and the third respondent is residing 1842 meters from the Centre. The learned Single Judge perused the original files and arrived at the conclusion that both the appellant and the third

respondent are residing within the radius of 3 kms. The said finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge is based on records.

12. Since the appellant scored lesser marks than the third respondent and the third respondent performed well in the interview than the appellant, the first respondent issued appointment order in favour of the third respondent. That apart, the criterion of 3 kms. has been fulfilled by the third respondent. The appellant has not made out any case warranting interference with the order of the learned Single Judge.

13. In the result, writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(D.K.K., ACJ.) (P.B.B., J.) 09.09.2024 Index :

Yes/No NC :

Yes/No bbr

To 1.The Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.

2.The Block Development Officer (Block Panchayats) Palacode, Dharmapuri District.

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.B.BALAJI, J.

bbr 09.09.2024