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

A.Chinnapparaj vs District Collector/Inspector Of ... on 8 August, 2025

                                                                                     W.P.No.34569 of 2012

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                             DATED : 08.08.2025

                                                       CORAM

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                           W.P No. 34569 of 2012
                                                    And
                                           M.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012
                A.Chinnapparaj                                                        ..Petitioner

                                                            Vs
                . District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats,
                Ariyalur,
                Ariyalur District.

                2.K.Panneersamy,
                Executive Officer,
                Varadarajanpet Town Panchayat,
                Udayarpalayam Taluk,
                Ariyalur District.

                3.S.Lawrance
                President,
                Vardarajanpet Town Panchayat,
                Udayarpalayam Taluk,
                Ariyalur District.

                4.Assistant Director,
                District Employment Officer,
                Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

                5. D.Anthonisamy                                                         ..Respondents


                1


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis            ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm )
                                                                                        W.P.No.34569 of 2012




                          Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying
                for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records
                leading to the issue of proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No. 43/2012 dated

                29.10.2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent/Executive Officer, Varadarajanpet

                Town Panchayat appointing the 5th respondent to the post of Sweeper in
                Vardarajanpet Town Panchayat and quash the same and direct the respondents
                1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sweeper in Vardarajanpet Town
                Panchayat.


                                  For Petitioner    :Mr. K.Sridhar
                                  For Respondent : Mr.LSM. Hasan Fazil, AGP – R1, R4
                                                      Mr. ERA.Premnath – R2 & R3
                                                     No Appearance – R5


                                                          ORDER

The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 29.10.2012 issued by the second respondent, whereby the fifth respondent was appointed to the post of Sweeper in the second respondent Town Panchayat, and to consequently direct the appointment of the petitioner to the said post. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) W.P.No.34569 of 2012

2. The petitioner asserts that he passed the 12th Standard in the year 2000 and had registered his name with the District Employment Office, Perambalur, in the year 1998 under Registration No. 47527/98. Pursuant to Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 209 dated 23.11.2001 and the proceedings of the Director of Town Panchayats in Na.Ka. No. 21226 of 2006/A3 dated 23.11.2001, the Employment Exchange was requested to sponsor the names of eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Sweeper, vide requisition dated 07.12.2011. In response, the Employment Exchange sponsored a list of eligible candidates for consideration. The second respondent thereafter called the sponsored candidates for an interview. Following the said interview, the impugned order was issued appointing the fifth respondent as Sweeper. Aggrieved by such appointment, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3. The fifth respondent, though served with notice, has neither appeared in person nor engaged counsel. Accordingly, he has been set ex parte. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) W.P.No.34569 of 2012

4. Heard Mr. K. Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fazil, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4, and Mr. E.R.A. Premnath, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The materials placed on record have also been perused.

5. The petitioner has produced his Identity Card, which records his educational qualifications as having passed the 12th Standard. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has passed the 12th Standard and is therefore ineligible for appointment as Sweeper on the ground of over-qualification. The fifth respondent is stated to have passed the 8th Standard in the Backward Class (BC) non-priority general category. In the interview proceedings annexed to the writ petition, however, it is shown that the Petitioner has only passed the 6th Standard, and that the petitioner was erroneously recorded as having passed the 6th Standard. This is contrary both to the educational details annexed by the petitioner and to the counter affidavit of the second respondent.

4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) W.P.No.34569 of 2012

6. It thus emerges that the petitioner is in fact more qualified than the 6th Standard, making him eligible to be considered for appointment as Sweeper. Notwithstanding this, he was overlooked in favour of the fifth respondent. The only ground cited during the interview for denying appointment to the petitioner was that he had passed only the 6th Standard, whereas the fifth respondent had passed the 8th Standard.

7. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent now contends that the petitioner was overqualified. However, such a ground cannot be substituted in judicial proceedings when the original reason given for non-selection was that the petitioner was allegedly less qualified than the fifth respondent. It is settled law that an order particularly a quasi-judicial or administrative order must stand or fall on the reasons actually recorded in it, and those reasons cannot later be supplemented, improved, or substituted by statements in pleadings or affidavits filed during judicial proceedings . This post facto justification is unsustainable in law. In these circumstances, the appointment of the fifth respondent on the ground that he was more meritorious than the petitioner cannot be sustained. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) W.P.No.34569 of 2012

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2012 issued by the second respondent is quashed. The second respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sweeper within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the past period. The second respondent is at liberty to accommodate the fifth respondent in any other suitable post. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

08.08.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ak To

1. The District Collector/Inspector of Panchayats, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

2. The Assistant Director, District Employment Officer, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.

6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm ) W.P.No.34569 of 2012 HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

ak W.P No. 34569 of 2012 08.08.2025 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:45:52 pm )