Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.Chandra on 28 October, 2020
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran, B.Pugalendhi
W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 28.10.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.A.(MD)Nos.107, 116, 111, 112, 115, 109, 117, 108, 113, 110, 114,
161, 166, 162, 163, 167, 165, 171, 164, 169, 168, 170, 183, 186, 184,
185, 187, 188, 190, 189, 227, 228, 232, 288, 290, 289, 239, 235, 291,
234, 238, 237, 233, 241, 240 and 242 of 2013
and
Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
W.A.(MD)No.107 of 2013:-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Social Welfare and Noon Meal Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Madurai,
Madurai District – 625 020. .. Appellants
Vs.
M.Chandra .. Respondent
1/12
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 17.10.2012, made in W.P.(MD)No.8977 of 2012.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Chellapandian
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.) These Writ Appeals have been preferred by the Government against the allowing of the writ petitions filed by the private respondents, challenging G.O.(Ms)No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department, dated 18.09.2010 and G.O.(Ms)No.4, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program (NMP) Department, dated 06.01.2011.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
2/12http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch
3.It is evident from the records that the learned Single Judge held that a part of G.O.(Ms)No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department, dated 18.09.2010, fixing additional qualification for consideration within three kilometers, is held to be ultra vires.
Similarly, insofar as G.O.(Ms)No.4, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program (NMP) Department, dated 06.01.2011, is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that the said Government Order gives unabridged and uncontrolled jurisdiction to the Personal Assistant (Nutritious Meal Program) to the District Collector to select one of the five persons recommended irrespective of the merit and the person most meritorious has a right of appointment, which cannot be defeated in an arbitrary manner at the whims and fancies of the appointing authority and therefore, the said Government Order is also arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4.Aggrieved by the said common order, the present writ appeals have been filed.
3/12http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch
5.Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State has brought to the notice of this Court that the impugned common order dated 17.10.2012, has been passed in a batch of writ petitions and the common order passed in some of the writ petitions, is the subject matter of the present batch of writ appeals.
6.In W.A.(MD)No.792 of 2012 etc. batch [The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Department, Chennai and others Vs. M.Muthulakshmi and another], a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, vide judgment, dated 22.03.2017, allowed the writ appeals, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and upheld the validity of G.O.(Ms)No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department, dated 18.09.2010 and G.O.(Ms)No.4, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program (NMP) Department, dated 06.01.2011. Paragraphs 51 to 55 and 86 to 88 of the said judgment [cited supra] are squarely applicable to the facts of the present cases. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to quote the said paragraphs, which read as under:-
4/12http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch ''51. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, the role of Noon Meal Organisers in the entirety of the scheme is very important, as they are the ones who are responsible for the implementation of this noble scheme. They are the custodians of food commodities stored in the stock room. Meals have to be prepared by the cooks at the respective Centres everyday before 12.30 p.m., which has to be supervised by the Noon Meal Organisers and it is the duty of the Noon Meal Organiser to maintain the quality and quantity of the food provided to the children. Hence, a Noon Meal Organiser has to be present at the Centre all the time and that can be achieved only when the Noon Meal Organiser resides at the nearest possible place, preferably within three kilometers from the centre. Since the distance criterion as fixed in the G.O. is only with the object of achieving the goal of providing quality cooked food to the children under a special scheme, the same cannot be held to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. In the State of Tamil Nadu, in every village and in most of the rural areas, there are centres providing cooked noon meals to school children. Hence, the women residing in the respective villages would get an opportunity of employment as Noon Meal Organisers and Cooks at such centres. Therefore, they will not be deprived of getting an opportunity of employment in the Centre located in their respective villages. Hence, in our considered view, particularly, 5/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch having regard to the nature of employment under the special scheme being implemented by the Government, such a condition imposed in the impugned Government Order cannot be held to be violative of neither Article 14 nor Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
52. Moreover, it is not for the first time that the Government have stipulated the distance criterion by way of G.O.Ms.No.163 dated 18.8.2010. In fact, the issue has frequently been referred to the Government for necessary clarifications and in G.O.Ms.No.203, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme (Social Welfare-7) Department, dated 19.8.2005, the Government have issued such clarification. In the said Government Order, it has been pointed out that when appointments are made for Noon Meal Centres from a radius of 10 kilometers, much time is lost for the person so appointed to commute between such long distance and many a times such person does not turn up for duty, which has been noticed during surprise inspections by the officials. Further, if the person so appointed is not a resident of that village, he/she seeks transfer to a different panchayat/district and such matters are often litigated upto the High Court, which hampers the effective functioning of such noon meal centre. Taking into consideration such difficulties faced, the Government has issued the following 6/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch clarifications in the aforesaid G.O.:-
(1) Wherever there is vacancy in any Noon Meal or Anganwadi Centre, eligible persons residing in the same hamlet should be appointed.
(2) Where qualified persons are unavailable in the hamlet, eligible persons from other neighbouring hamlets under the same village panchayat should be selected. If even such persons are not available, then qualified persons from other panchayats, not beyond the distance of 10 kilometers surrounding the said panchayat should be selected.
(3) As far as municipalities/corporations are concerned, eligible persons from the same Ward where there is a vacancy should be selected, and on the unavailability of persons there, eligible persons from the nearby Ward should be considered, and if even such persons are not available, then persons from the same Division should be selected.
53. From the above, it is clear that the Government have tried its best to evolve a pragmatic solution while appointing Noon Meal Organisers from places nearer to the Noon Meal Centres, and the distance criterion has been rightly fixed taking into account the practical difficulties faced while appointing persons belonging to far off places.
7/12http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch
54. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ Court has not considered the issue in its right perspective, and it has committed an error in law by quashing the said criteria fixed for appointment by G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010.
55. In view of our above decision, the validity of the said criteria (i.e., laying down other qualification of 3 Kms., distance) fixed for appointment by G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010 is upheld and the selection made pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.72, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 30.04.2012 is sustained.
86. In the light of the decisions and discussion, we hardly find any irrationality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness, behind the above stipulation made in G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 06.01.2011. According to us, there is basis for classification, reasonableness and clear nexus, between the classification and the object sought to be achieved. Legislature or the Government has a wide discretion in making the classification and the impugned G.O., does not reflect hostile discrimination against a class of persons. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and 8/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 06.01.2011, imposing different procedure for appointment in the Nutritious Meal Centre of Government Aided Minority School and Nutritious Meal Centre of Government Aided Non-Minority School is not hit by Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.
87. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ Court has not considered the issue in its right perspective, and it has committed an error in law by quashing G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 06.01.2011.
88. In view of our above decision, the validity of the said criteria i.e. imposing different procedure for appointment for Government Aided Minority School and Government Aided Non- Minority School vide G.O.Ms.No.4, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 06.01.2011 is upheld.''
7.Mr.A.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.(MD)No.113 of 2013 would submit that the respondent's appointment was cancelled based on the ground that she has suppressed 9/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch the distance between her residence viz., Thirukanai and the place of appointment viz., Angadimangalam. According to the show cause notice, it is 23 Kilometers between her residence and the place of appointment.
8.Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / writ petitioner would submit that the respondent's appointment was made on 13.07.2012, she has not explained as to when she got married to a person, who is residing in Angadimangalam, to which place, she was appointed.
In view of suppression of distance between Angadimangalam and Thirukanai, which is the place of birth of the respondent/writ petitioner, the order of appointment is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the order, allowing the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11628 of 2012 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside.
9.In the result, the order of the learned Single Judge, is set aside insofar as the respective respondents herein/writ petitioners and the Writ 10/12 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No (N.K.K., J.) (B.P., J.)
Internet : Yes 28.10.2020
smn2
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.
11/12http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.(MD)Nos.107 of 2013 etc., batch N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
AND B.PUGALENDHI, J.
smn2 Common Judgment made in W.A.(MD)Nos.107, 116, 111, 112, 115, 109, 117, 108, 113, 110, 114, 161, 166, 162, 163, 167, 165, 171, 164, 169, 168, 170, 183, 186, 184, 185, 187, 188, 190, 189, 227, 228, 232, 288, 290, 289, 239, 235, 291, 234, 238, 237, 233, 241, 240 and 242 of 2013 28.10.2020 12/12 http://www.judis.nic.in