Madras High Court
R.Kasthoori vs The District Collector on 7 June, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.16454 of 2012
R.Kasthoori ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector
Dindigul District, Dindigul
2.The Programme Officer
Integrated Child Development
Services Scheme, Dindigul
3.The Child Development Programme Officer
Child Development Programme Office
Authoor, Dindigul District
4.Kulanthai Theras ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to
the impugned order of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in
No.Se.Mu.Na.No.1310/A1/2012 dated 30.08.2012 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently directing the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner
as Anganwadi Worker in Panjampatti 3 Centre.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi
For Respondents : Mr.S.Dhayalan
Government Advocate for R1 to R3
Mr.R.Vijayakumar for R4
ORDER
The appointment of the fourth respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Panjampatti 3rd Centre is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the process of selection and appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Panjampatti 3rd Centre was improper and without assessing the aspects of the candidates individually. The writ petitioner is residing very near to the Centre, more specifically, within nine kilometers distance. While so, the writ petitioner was not considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Panjampatti 3rd Centre. Contrarily, the fourth respondent, who is residing away from the Centre, is appointed on extraneous considerations.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner further states that the authorities competent had not conducted the process of selection and appointment in accordance with the procedures contemplated http://www.judis.nic.in 3 and in order to favour the fourth respondent, they have given more marks to the fourth respondent, selected and appointed her. Therefore, the impugned order appointing the fourth respondent as Anganwadi Worker in Panjampatti 3rd Centre is liable to be quashed.
4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 states that the post of Anganwadi Worker in Panjampatti-3 Centre, Aathoor Taluk, Dindigul District was to be filled up under the general category reservation and communal rotation system. Totally, 15 applications were received and the applicants were issued with a call letter for certificate verification and interview on 04.08.2012. The Selection Committee comprising three members, including, the Child Development Programme Officer / third respondent conducted the interview. As the Integrated Child Department Service Scheme aims to improve the nutritional and health status of children of six months to three years, pregnant women and nursing mothers, including supplementary nutrition, pre-school education, immunization, health checkup referral services, the candidates were asked various questions relating to the children, pregnancy, hygiene and based on the evaluation, marks were awarded to them and as the fourth respondent had scored more marks than the other candidates, she was selected and appointed. The process of selection and appointment was conducted by following the procedures http://www.judis.nic.in 4 contemplated, conducting interview and awarding marks and therefore, there was no irregularity in the process of selection and appointment. The Government guidelines in this regard were strictly followed by the Selection Committee and therefore, the allegations raised by the writ petition are incorrect.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the allegations with regard to the process of selection and appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker raised by the writ petitioner cannot be considered in view of the fact that such allegations are to be substantiated / established through some acceptable documents or evidence. The writ petitioner states that the selection was conducted improperly. However, there is no sound proof to arrive at a conclusion that the selection was not conducted in accordance with the procedures contemplated.
6. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the process of selection and appointment to the public posts is to be conducted only through open competitive process and conducting a written examination. Selecting and appointing candidates solely based on the interview is undoubtedly not desirable and in such an event, there is a possibility of malpractice and corrupt activities. During the course of interview, it is possible for awarding http://www.judis.nic.in 5 more marks to the candidate on extraneous considerations. If the interview alone is a criteria for selection and appointment to the public posts, then it would pave a way for corrupt activities and hence, the interview marks are to be restricted to 15% alone as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. Even for the Group-IV posts, process of selection and appointment should be by conducting a written examination, which is to be followed by an interview and awarding marks in the interview is to be restricted to 15%. Then only, clean and transparent can be maintained in the process of selection and appointment to the public posts.
7. Large number of litigations are filed before the High Court questioning the process of selection and appointment to the public posts on the grounds of favoritism and corrupt activities. Undoubtedly, there is a scope for such favoritism and corrupt activities in view of the fact the process of selection and appointment to the public posts, more specifically Noon Meals Organizer, Night Watchman, Assistant etc., is solely based on the interview. The authorities competent have to conduct the process of selection and appointment through written examination, which is to be followed by an interview. The open competitive process is to be followed strictly and the procedures contemplated are to be adopted for selection and appointment to the Group-IV posts also. This being the principles to be followed, this Court is http://www.judis.nic.in 6 of the considered opinion that all future appointments are to be made under the constitutional scheme, through open competitive process, in order to avoid all such discrepancies and unnecessary litigations.
8. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, though certain allegations of malpractice have been stated, the same have not been established / substantiated and the writ petitioner is also unable to establish / substantiate the same by producing acceptable documents or evidence. This apart, the fourth respondent was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Panjampatti 3rd Centre during the year 2012 and is working for more than six years. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of appointment issued in favour of the fourth respondent at this length of time.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
07.06.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk http://www.judis.nic.in 7 To:
The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development, Services Scheme, Dindigul.
3.The Child Development Programme Officer, Child Development Programme Office, Authoor, Dindigul District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
krk W.P.(MD) No.16454 of 2012 07.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in