Madras High CourtWP(MD)/10816/2019dismissed

D.Sivashankar v. The District Collector

2022-04-25Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

W.P.(MD) No.10816 of 2019 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD) No.10816 of 2019 D.Sivashankar ... Petitioner -vs1. The District Collector, Tuticorin District.

2. The Special Officer/ Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

3. Arunachaladurai ... Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Panchayat Secretary of Komadikottai Village Panchayat, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Saravanan For RR1 & 2 :

Mr.M.Ramesh Government Advocate

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Panchayat Secretary of Komadikottai Village Panchayat, Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District.

2. The petitioner states that he is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the 3rd respondent is not residing in the same village and therefore, he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Panchayat Secretary. However, the petitioner has not challenged the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ _________

W.P.(MD) No.10816 of 2019 appointment order of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was already appointed on 08.03.2019 and order of appointment was issued. He joined on the same day on 08.03.2019 itself and serving as Village Panchayat Secretary of Komadikottai Village Panchayat.

4. By seeking the relief of direction to appoint the petitioner, High Court cannot consider such appointment merely based on representations. Admittedly, the order of appointment issued in favour of the 3rd respondent has not been challenged in the present writ petition. While so, a direction to appoint the petitioner in the same place cannot be granted by the High Court. If at all there is any irregularity or illegality in the appointment of the 3rd respondent, the said appointment order is to be challenged. However, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent is not residing in the village. But the counter filed by the 2nd respondent reveals that all those aspects were considered by the Selection Committee and the 3rd respondent was appointed.

5. The learned Government Advocate made a submission that the petitioner himself is residing at Chennai and not residing in Komadikottai village.

6. All these factors deserve no merit adjudication, as the petitioner has not challenged the order of appointment of the 3rd respondent. While so, the relief of direction to appoint the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Secretary cannot be granted.

7. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) abr To

1. The District Collector, Tuticorin District.

2. The Special Officer/ Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District.

+1 CC to M/s.D. SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-21587[F] dated 27/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP. ( SR-21200[F] dated 26/04/2022 ) W.P.(MD) No.10816 of 2019 25.04.2022 MGJ(26.05.2022) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ _________