J.Panchavarnam v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 31.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN Writ Petition No.21979 of 2019 and W.M.P(MD)No.18738 of 2019 J.Panchavarnam ... Petitioner ..Vs..

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutrition Meal Programme Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Madurai District Collectorate Madurai.

3.The Chid Development Project Officer, Tirumangalam Taluk, Tirumangalam Madurai District.

4.Mrs.Sathya ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Declaration, declaring the appointment of 4th respondent in the post of Anganwadi Worker at Chid Development Project Office, Kaliammman Kovil Theru, Kinnimangalam, as illegal and

consequently to direct the 2nd and third respondents to appoint the petitioner in that post.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthick For R to R3` : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the selection of the fourth respondent in the post of Anganwadi Worker. 2.Heard Mr.G.Karthick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is the native of Poovarasampatti, Kinnimangalam Village. The learned counsel would further submit that in pursuance of notification for Anganwadi worker, the petitioner has submitted an application and he was received a call letter and also attended the interview.

4.It is the specific submission of the petitioner that he and the fourth respondent has got equal merits. The fourth respondent's husband is gainfully employed in a Government post, whereas the petitioner's husband is not gainfully employed as that of the fourth respondent's husband. The learned counsel would invite the attention of this Court about the notification calling for the post, wherein it has been specifically referred that the applicant should attach a certificate to the effect that the applicant's spouse is not engaged in a Government post. In spite of such specific instructions, the official respondent has appointed the fourth respondent and such appointment is illegal and hence, he prays to allow this writ petition.

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent would submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.110, dated 14.05.202, the gainful employment of the applicant's spouse or the family members is not a disqualification. Therefore, he would submit that the appointment of the fourth respondent could not be challenged. 6.I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made an either side.

7.The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in respect of the employment of the family member of the fourth respondent. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the G.O.Ms.No.110 categorically stipulates that the employment of family members of the applicant is not a disqualification. This Court while looking at the notification it does not refer to the preference given to those persons whose family members are not in the Government employment. Therefore, there are no traces of irregularity in the appointment.

8.In view of the above peculiar circumstances, this Court absolutely does not find any merit in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

31.0.2025 Index::Yes/No Ncc:Yes/No Ns

To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Social Welfare and Nutrition Meal Programme Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The District Collector, Madurai District Collectorate Madurai.

3.The Chid Development Project Officer, Tirumangalam Taluk, Tirumangalam Madurai District.

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

Ns Order made in W.P(MD)No.21979 of 2019 31.10.2025