S. Muthukumari v. The Distrcit Collector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and W.M.P(MD)No.13925 of 2019 S.Muthumari ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Project Officer, Child Development, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Child Development Officer, The Child Development Office, Virudhunagar Block, Virudhunagar.
4.C.Rekha ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.36/A1/2019 dated 25.02.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appointment the petitioner as Angawadi worker at Sengundrapuram Village, Virudhunagar District. 1/6
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Mohanasundaram For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan (R1 to R3) Additional Government Pleader : Mr.S.Sankar
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the selection of the fourth respondent.
2.It is the specific submission of the petitioner that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and is a destitute widow and that she also belongs from the same place where the post of Anganwadi worker, is notified.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the notification issued by the first respondent calling for applications to the post of Anganwadi worker for Sengundrapuram West Village, vide notification dated 06.02.2019. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and also attended the interview.
2/6
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, as per clause No.3 of the notification, there is a clear mentioning that the person, who is a native of the Village, in which the post is sought for, will be given preference. However, in the present case, the fourth respondent, who does not belong to Sengundrapuram Village and is residing in a distant place, has been selected. Therefore, he would submit that the selection of the fourth respondent is liable to be quashed. 5.The said contention was stoutly objected by the learned Additional Government Pleader, who, by inviting the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, would contend that the petitioner secured only 55 marks, whereas the fourth respondent secured 60 marks.
He further submitted that, as per the notification, if there is no eligible candidate from the very same village where the post is notified, candidates from neighbouring villages within a 10 km radius may be considered. Apart from that, the learned Additional Government Pleader has also referred to G.O.No.110, dated 14.05.2012, which reiterates the same condition regarding residence as stipulated in the impugned notification.
3/6
6.From the submissions made on either side, this Court is of the firm view that there is no illegality in selecting a candidate from a neighbouring Village if she is more meritorious than the petitioner. While looking at the merits, it is seen that the petitioner has secured only 55 marks, whereas the fourth respondent has secured 60 marks. Therefore, the objection that the fourth respondent, being from a neighbouring Village, cannot be selected, is in contravention to the terms of the notification as well as G.O.No.110, dated 14.05.2012. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the selection of the fourth respondent. Hence, there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. 7.In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps 4/6
To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.
2.The District Project Officer, Child Development, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Child Development Officer, The Child Development Office, Virudhunagar Block, Virudhunagar.
5/6
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ps 04.11.2025 6/6