Madras High Court
D.Sugapriya vs The District Collector on 1 March, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.(MD)No.3917 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:01.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.(MD)No.3917 of 2023
W.M.P(MD).Nos.3747 and 3748 of 2023
D.Sugapriya
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Thiruvadanai Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
3.Nalayini ... Respondents
Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.A1/4862/2022 dated 14.01.2023, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Village
Assistant at Keelpanaiyur Revenue Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk,
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.3917 of 2023
Ramanathapuram District, with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam
For R1 and R2 : Ms.K.Christy Theboral
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/4862/2022 dated 14.01.2023, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant at Keelpanaiyur Revenue Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, with all consequential benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents issued a Notification to fill up the posts of Village Assistant and nine posts were notified to the second respondent Taluk. She applied for the said post in Keelpanaiyur Revenue Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District under OC non-priority category and she has submitted her application on 07.11.2022. The written examination was conducted on 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3917 of 2023 04.12.2022 and she was called for interview on 04.01.2023. She has also attended the interview. When she was waiting for appointment order, she was informed that the third respondent was appointed as Village Assistant. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.574, Revenue and Disaster Management, Department, dated 17.10.2020, the petitioner and the other candidates were awarded marks equally. However, in the interview, the petitioner was awarded three marks and the third respondent was awarded twelve marks and thereby, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, which is not sustainable one. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has secured 73.5 marks in the written and other eligibility test and three marks in interview, whereas, the third respondent has secured 74 marks in the written and other eligibility test and 12 marks in interview. Hence, the third 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3917 of 2023 respondent was selected as Village Assistant. The interview was conducted by the Tahsildar, Special Tahsildar and the Deputy Tahsildar as per the guidelines issued in the Government Order. There is no illegality or irregularity in the appointment of the third respondent.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
6. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner and the third respondent have applied for the post of Village Assistant at Keelapanaiyur Revenue Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has secured 73.5 marks in the written and other eligibility test and three marks in interview, whereas, the third respondent has secured 74 marks in the written and other eligibility test and 12 marks in interview. After considering the eligibility, the marks secured by the candidates and the performance during the interview, the Selection Committee has selected 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3917 of 2023 the third respondent as Village Assistant at Keelapanaiyur Revenue Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The selection process was conducted as per G.O.Ms.No.574, Revenue and Disaster Management, Department, dated 17.10.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.521, Revenue Department, dated 17.06.1998. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.03.2023 ssb To
1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Pudukkottai District.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.3917 of 2023 M.DHANDAPANI,J.
ssb W.P.(MD)No.3917 of 2023 01.03.2023 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis