A.Madathi, v. The Special Commissioner,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 01.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W. P.(MD) No.18942 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15290 and 15291 of 2017 A.Madathi ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare & N.N.P. (S.W) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Korampallam, Thoothukudi.
3.The Divisional Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Karungulam, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
4.T.Muthulakshmi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in A1/3485/2017-AW 40, dated 09.09.2017 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in "Kongarayankurichi Kalyana Mandapam Centre" with all consequential benefits within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader for R3 R1, R2 and R4 - No appearance
ORDER
The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Anganwadi Worker in "Kongarayankurichi Kalyana Mandapam Centre". The petitioner was not selected. The fourth respondent was instead selected. The same was questioned by the writ petitioner.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that the said Centre has been ear-marked for General Candidates coming under the priority category.
3. The petitioner submits that she is a destitute widow. The fourth respondent herein is also similarly placed in other respects. However, the fourth respondent cannot be said to come under the priority category. The fourth respondent though served did not chose to enter appearance.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent would submit that the Centre in question has been reserved for General Priority (Ex-service man). Since, no candidate in the said category had applied in response to the notification, the fourth respondent herein was selected, based on the marks obtained by her.
5. It is true that the fourth respondent had scored more marks when compared to the writ petitioner. But even as per the averments set out in the counter affidavit the Centre had been reserved only for a priority candidate. If the Ex-serviceman candidate was not available, it should be given to another candidate coming under the priority category. Admittedly the fourth respondent does not come under the priority category. The petitioner falls under the priority category because she is a destitute widow. Therefore, the second respondent fell into error by not selecting the petitioner herein.
6. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is quashed. The second respondent is directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioner within a period of four week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. This Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) To 1.The Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare & N.N.P. (S.W) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Korampallam, Thoothukudi.
3.The Divisional Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Karungulam, Srivaikuntam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.
+1CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR.No.45745 +1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No.46146 W. P.(MD) No.18942 of 2017 01.02.2018 KMI/SKM ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 4/09.10.2018/3P/6C