Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M. Amutha vs The District Collector on 10 September, 2024

Author: Battu Devanand

Bench: Battu Devanand

                                                                                      W.P. No. 1013 of 2018

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 10.09.2024

                                                          CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

                                                    W.P.No. 1013 of 2018
                                                            and
                                                   W.M.P. No. 1207 of 2018

            M. Amutha                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.

            1.The District Collector,
              Villupuram District, Villupuram.

            2.Shanthi                                                                  ... Respondents

                      Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance
            of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order
            passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Sae.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1958/A1/2017,
            dated 14.12.2017 and quash the same.
                                  For Petitioner  : Ms. R. Hemalatha,
                                                    for Mr. C. Prakasam
                                  For Respondents : Mr. V. Jeeva Giridharan,
                                                    Additional Government Pleader for R1
                                                    Mr. C. Munusamy for R2

                                                         ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed against the proceedings dated 14.12.2017 issued by the first respondent appointing the second respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Angarayanallur Centre, Gingee Block, Villupuram District.

2. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6 W.P. No. 1013 of 2018 Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the material available on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, she studied up to +2 and belongs to Backward Class community and a destitute widow residing in the Angarayanallur Village. The first respondent called for applications to fill up the post of Anganwadi worker in the said Village. The petitioner submitted her application. Interview was held on 06.09.2017. The petitioner attended the interview and expecting appointment order. But the first respondent appointed the second respondent, as Anganwadi Worker vide proceedings dated 14.12.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she is a destitute widow and as such, preference has to be given in selection of Anganwadi Worker. Learned counsel further contends that the second respondent is hailing from well to do family and having own house, land, her husband is running cable TV business and having own Auto but the petitioner is economically weaker person and as such, preference has to be given to the petitioner in selection process. The first respondent without considering these two aspects, appointed the second respondent which is against to the procedure to be followed in G.O.Ms.No.110 Social Welfare Nutrition Meal Program Department, dated 14.05.2012 and sought to set aside the impugned order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 W.P. No. 1013 of 2018 by allowing the writ petition.

5. On behalf of the first and second respondents, counter affidavits have been filed. Based on the averments made in the said counter affidavits, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent submit that the vacancy of Anganwadi Worker in Angarayanallur Centre was reserved for Backward Class (other than Muslim) Non- Priority communal rotation as per roster. Both petitioner and second respondent falls under the same category. Both are residents of the same village and the petitioner is residing at the distance of 250 metre from the centre and the second respondent is residing at the distance of 5 metre from the centre. In the oral interview, the second respondent had better knowledge and understanding about the purpose and working of Anganwadi Centres and she is having a practical knowledge in handling children and as such, she secured 24 marks. The petitioner scored 19 marks. Considering the over all performance of the candidates, the first respondent appointed the second respondent and as such, there is no illegality in the order impugned in this writ petition and they sought to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Having considered the respective counsel arguments and on perusal of the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the vacancy of Anganwadi worker in Angarayanallur Village is reserved for Backward Class (other than https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 W.P. No. 1013 of 2018 Muslim) Non-Priority category. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner and the second respondent belongs to BC category. The contention of the petitioner is that, as the petitioner is destitute widow, preference has to be given to her. But when vacancy is reserved fro BC Non-Priority, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the procedure prescribed for selection of Anganwadi Workers in G.O.Ms.110 Social Welfare Nutrition Meal Program Department, dated 14.05.2012, there is no bar to consider the candidate who hailed from well to do family or having any house or property. It appears from the contentions of the counsel for the respondents that, the first respondent appointed the second respondent by following the procedure and considering that the second respondent is having knowledge in handing children in Anganwadi Centre and they assessed the over all performance of the candidates and took a decision to appoint the second respondent.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the order passed by the first respondent in appointing the second respondent. In our considered view, the second respondent was appointed by the first respondent by following the procedure provided in G.O.Ms.110 dated 14.05.2012.

8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition is liable to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 W.P. No. 1013 of 2018 dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

9. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10.09.2024 Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No AT To The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 W.P. No. 1013 of 2018 BATTU DEVANAND, J.

AT W.P.No. 1013 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 1207 of 2018 10.09.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6