R.Muniammal v. Mrs. K.Santhi, I.A.S.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR R.Muniammal W/o.R.Mani ..Petitioner Vs Mrs.K.Santhi, I.A.S The District Collector Dharmapuri District.

..Respondent Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt Court Act, praying to punish the Respondent for wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.25487 of 2012 dated 05.01.2023. For Petitioner:

Mr.R.Venkatesan For Respondent:

Mr.P.Muthukumar Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging non-compliance with the order dated 05.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.25487 of 2012. By the said order, the petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent

seeking employment, along with the necessary particulars. Upon receipt of such representation, the first respondent was directed to consider the same and appoint the petitioner in the Noon Meal Centres, where vacancies arise, if she is otherwise eligible for the said post.

2. The State has filed a counter affidavit stating that the representation submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and was rejected on the grounds that there are no vacancies in the Noon Meal Centres and that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment to the said post.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are 52 vacancies in the Dharmapuri District.

4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submitted that there are no vacancies as on date. He further submitted that while earlier appointments to the Noon Meal Centres were made district-wise, the said system has since been abolished, and at present, appointments are made on a State-wide basis.

5. Without entering into the disputed question as to whether any vacancies exist or not, it is evident that the petitioner's representation has been considered and appropriate orders have been passed by the competent authority. Consequently, no further issue survives for consideration in the present contempt proceedings.

6. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the first respondent pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.No.25487 of 2012, in the manner known to law.

22.01.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mk

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., mk 22.01.2026