Madras High Court
L.Poovalingam vs The District Collector on 24 February, 2022
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.16435 of 2018
L.Poovalingam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kariyapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of
the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection passed in her
proceedings in Na.Ka.A7/3288/2013, dated 13.06.2015 and to quash the same and
consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Village
Assistant in the light of order passed in W.P.(MD)No.1641 of 2011, dated 09.12.2014,
with all service and monetary benefits on par with my batchmates within the time limit
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018
that may be stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.S.Kameswaran
Government Advocate (Civil side)
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection passed in her proceedings in Na.Ka.A7/3288/2013, dated 13.06.2015 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Village Assistant in the light of order passed in W.P. (MD)No.1641 of 2011, dated 09.12.2014, with all service and monetary benefits on par with my batchmates within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
2.The petitioner belong to SC community and he registered himself in the District Employment Exchange. The respondents called for list from the District Employment Exchange and based on that, issued call letter to the petitioner on 20.09.2010, calling for interview to be held on 28.09.2010. Based 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018 on the call letter, the petitioner attended the interview. The petitioner was waiting for appointment order. The second respondent appointed 57 persons temporarily vide appointment order, dated 10.01.2011, in which the petitioner's name was left out. The petitioner submitted objection to the first respondent through registered post on 13.01.2011. The petitioner along with 5 other persons challenged the appointment order of the said 57 persons in Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.1641 of 2011 and this Court has granted an interim order to keep 6 posts as vacant. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was disposed of, vide order, dated 19.12.2014, wherein, it has been stated as under:
“5. The perusal of the records would reveal that the petitioners have registered their names in the employment exchange between 1989 and 1990 and have been as of now about 36 to 45 years. The petitioners have been waiting to get employment for nearly two decades but in vain. Considering their plight and considering the number of vacancy, this Court deems it fit to direct the concerned Tahsildar to consider the appointment of the petitioners in the post kept vacant, vide interim order passed herein, subject to fulfilling the educational and other qualifications and performance in the interview, without reference to their age and consider their selection by obtaining age relaxation wherever necessary.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018 The above exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.”
3.The second respondent considered all the 6 persons and issued an appointment order to Pal Pandi, Karupasamy and Maharajan. Since the other petitioners were not considered, the petitioner issued a contempt notice. During the pendency of the contempt, the respondents issued appointment order to Sivamuni also. Now, the left person is the petitioner and another person namely Baskar. The said Baskar filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.18577 of 2018 and today it is reported that the said Baskar died and hence this Court dismissed the writ petition as abated. Now, the left out person is only the petitioner.
4.Heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Mr.S.Rajangam, Senior Revenue Inspector, Kariyapatti Taluk 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018 Office, Virudhunagar District appeared before this Court.
5.The respondents submitted that out of 15 posts, one post kept vacant to fill up compassionate appointment. Out of remaining 14 posts, 25% of the post i.e. 4 posts are allotted to compassionate ground. Remaining 10 posts may be filled through the District Employment Exchange, based on communal rotation. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner is not fulfilling the roaster. The appointment of the petitioner is not considered and the reason is stated as under:
“jw;NghJ rhh; epiy gzp tpjpfs; 22d; gb Mjpjpuhtplh; Kd;Dhpikaw;wth; SC (Gen) (Non Pry) jpU.G+typq;fk; vd;gtUf;F ,dRow;rp mbg;gilapYk; kw;Wk; tajpd; mbg;gilapYk;> nrd;id cah;ePjpkd;w kJiu fpis 09.12.2014 Njjpa jPh;gg ; pd; gbAk; gzp epakdk; toq;f khh;f;fkpy;iy vd;w tpguk; kDjhuUf;F njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner belongs to SC 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018 community and the District Employment Exchange has also confirmed it and has given a list by marking the petitioner as belonging to SC community. This Court is not able to understand the reason given by the respondents. In fact, according to roaster the post is allotted to SC general non-priority and the petitioner comes under SC non-priority.
7. Therefore, this Court is setting aside the order of rejection, dated 13.06.2015. The respondents are directed to issue an appointment order within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8.It is submitted by the respondents that 17 posts are still vacant and the Government is contemplating to fill up the said 17 posts. It is strictly directed, the respondents should show only 16 posts as vacant and the 17 th post is allotted to the petitioner. The respondents should not create further confusion in this issue. Already this Court has observed that there are some malpractices in the 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018 appointment orders and the respondents should act properly otherwise, this Court will be constrained to take action against the respondents.
9.With this observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 24.02.2022
Internet : Yes
Tmg
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018
S.SRIMATHY, J
Tmg
To
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Tahsildar,
Kariyapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
W.P.(MD)No.18576 of 2018
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant
concerned.
24.02.2022
8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis