Madras High Court
V.Parvathi vs The Director Of Town Panchayats on 10 July, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.07.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P[MD]Nos.20490 to 20499 of 2013
and
M.P.[MD]Nos.2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2 & 2 of 2013
W.P[MD]No.20490 of 2013:
V.Parvathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam, Chenna.
2.The Collector,
Trichy District, Trichy.
3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Trichy Zone, Trichy.
4.The Executive Officer,
Mettupalayam, Town Panchayat,
Trichy District.
5.A.Balakrishnan ... Respondents
[R5 is impleaded vide Court order dated
27.06.2019 in MP[MD]No.1 of 2014]
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
proceedings of the fourth respondent in its Na.Ka.No.21 of 2007
dated 05.12.2013 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayshankar
For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.D.Muruganantham
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.4 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen
For Respondent No.5 : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem
[In all Writ Petitions]
COMMON ORDER
The impugned orders of cancellation of appointments issued by the fourth respondent pursuant to the directions of the District Collector are under challenge in the present writ petitions. The impugned orders are passed with reference to the orders of the District Collector, Trichy, in proceedings dated 02.12.2013.
2.The learned Counsel for the writ petitioners states that the petitioners were sponsored through the employment exchange for appointment to the post of sanitary worker. All the petitioners were appointed as sanitary worker by the Executive Officer of Mettupalayam Town Panchayat, Trichy. The appointments were made on 27.04.2007 and on 05.07.2007, respectively. The fourth http://www.judis.nic.in 3 respondent issued orders confirming the writ petitioners on 09.05.2008. On 14.10.2008, the fourth respondent cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioners based on the directions issued by the Director of Town Panchayat / first respondent. In view of the fact that the appointment orders were cancelled, immediately, the writ petitioners filed W.P.[MD]No.26071 to 26080 of 2008 and interim orders were granted by this Court. High Court allowed the writ petitions on 25.11.2010 by setting aside the orders of termination passed by the fourth respondent on the ground that the same were in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, the High Court granted liberty to the fourth respondent to conduct an enquiry and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
3.Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, show cause notices were issued by the fourth respondent to all the writ petitioners on 07.04.2011. The petitioners submitted their respective explanations denying their allegations on 15.07.2011. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners states that the report submitted by the enquiry officer shows that the charges against the writ petitioners were not proved. Accordingly, the fourth respondent issued orders exonerating the writ petitioners from the charges. On 16.08.2011, the Town Panchayat passed a resolution approving the action of the fourth respondent. Thereafter, in http://www.judis.nic.inproceedings dated 05.12.2013, the impugned orders of the fourth 4 respondent were issued terminating the services of the writ petitioners without any further hearing. Thus, the present Writ Petitions are filed.
4.Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners made a submission that the writ petitioners have not committed any illegality. Pursuant to the interview conducted, the writ petitioners were selected and appointed. The writ petitioners are no way responsible for any such irregularity or illegality in the matter of providing appointment. The charges against the writ petitioners are also not proved. Therefore, the impugned orders of cancellation of appointments are untenable. It is further contended that the earlier writ petitions were allowed on the ground that no opportunity was provided to the writ petitioners. Subsequently, on enquiry, the charges framed against the writ petitioners were not proved and therefore, the actions of the fourth respondent was validated by the Town Panchayat. Under these circumstances, the orders of cancellation issued at the instance of the District Collector are unsustainable in law.
5.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 disputed the contentions of the writ petitioners by stating that the entire selection process was http://www.judis.nic.intainted with illegalities. The enquiry officer submitted a detailed 5 report on 29.08.2008, setting out the manner in which the appointments were made in each case. On a perusal of the enquiry report, it is unambiguous that there were serious illegalities and irregularities in the matter of conducting the selection process and the appointments made in favour of these writ petitioners. Thus, the enquiry report of the enquiry officer was considered by the District Collector and accordingly, directions were issued to cancel the appointments based on the enquiry report.
6.It is further contended that the Rule of Reservation was not followed. The procedures prescribed were not adhered to and marks were awarded to the respective candidates, who participated in the interview at the whims and fancies of the fourth respondent. For instance, a candidate who was not possessing any educational qualification was awarded the maximum mark of 10 marks for educational qualification. The candidate who possessed educational qualification was not awarded any such mark for qualification. Allegations of acceptance of bribe was also recorded by the enquiry officer. Even sponsoring of the names from the employment exchange was done on account of certain corrupt activities. Instead of sponsoring the candidates at the rate of 5:1, in respect of one case, the name of only one person was sponsored and that person was appointed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
7.All such findings are recorded in the enquiry report with reference to the original files and after conducting a detailed enquiry by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the cancellation of appointment is in accordance with the proceedings contemplated and such corrupt appointments can never be approved by the competent authorities of the Government. Once the illegalities were identified in the matter of appointment, then the authority competent are duty bound to cancel the same and conduct fresh selection by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates and by following the procedures contemplated.
8.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded respondents also opposed the contentions by stating that on account of the illegal appointments many other eligible candidates lost their opportunity to get appointment to the post of sanitary worker. When eligible candidates also had participated in the process of interview, by means of corrupt activities, the selection was made and persons were appointed at the choice of the fourth respondent, which was clearly enumerated in the enquiry report submitted to the District Collector by the competent enquiry officer. For all these reasons, these writ petitions are to be rejected.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
9.Considering the arguments of the respective learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner as well as the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the facts regarding the appointments are to be considered. The writ petitioners were appointed in the year 2007. However, in the year 2008 itself, the appointments were cancelled by the fourth respondent on 14.10.2008. Thus, immediately after identifying the fact that the appointments were made on account of certain corrupt activities and tainted with illegalities, the order of cancellation of appointments were made in the year 2008 itself. However, the writ petitioners filed W.P.[MD]Nos.26071 to 26080 of 2008 and they continued in service only based on the interim orders granted by this Court.
10.No doubt, the earlier writ petitions were allowed on the ground that no opportunity was provided to the writ petitioners. The cases were remanded back for providing opportunity and to reconsider the issue. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued by the fourth respondent on 07.04.2011 and the writ petitioners also had submitted their respective explanations in the year 2011 and thereafter, the enquiry officer, made a finding that the charges are not proved against the writ petitioners. However, the actions of the fourth respondent was approved by the Town Panchayat. http://www.judis.nic.in 8
11.Thereafter, the District Collector, had perused the entire enquiry report as well as the files and found that the entire appointments were made through illegal means and there were allegations of corrupt activities. Considering the report and the circumstances, once again the District Collector directed the fourth respondent to cancel the appointments. Consequently, again the appointments of the writ petitioners were cancelled in proceedings dated 05.12.2013 and the said orders of cancellation are under challenge in the present writ petitions. Even now, the writ petitioners are continuing in service based on the interim order granted by this Court.
12.Therefore, the fact remains that the writ petitioners were appointed in the year 2007 and the order of appointments were cancelled in the year 2008. From 2008 onwards, the petitioners are continuing in service only based on the interim order granted by this Court. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioners cannot claim that they are working for long years and therefore, they are entitled to continue in service. The delay occurred on account of the pendency of the writ petitions and the petitioners are continuing in service on account of the interim order granted by this Court. Such litigious continuation in service cannot be a ground to claim continuity of employment.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
13.The counter filed by the respondents also reveals that the report of the District Collector was forwarded to the first respondent Director and the Director also issued suitable directions to cancel the appointments. Therefore, the issues were dealt with by the District Collector as well by the Director of Town Panchayat. The Director further issued instructions to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the fourth respondent and the said disciplinary proceedings were also initiated and in progress.
14.It is relevant to consider the fact that the third respondent Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Trichy Zone conducted an enquiry on 28.05.2013 with the fourth respondent. The third respondent in his enquiry report dated 30.09.2013 had stated that the fourth respondent had not followed the instructions of the first respondent in D.O. Letter No.7990/2008/A3 dated 24.09.2008 and of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1378/2008/Pae.2, dated 13.10.2008 that the fourth respondent had not analysed whether the appointments had been made in accordance with law and Rules and the fourth respondent had acted unilaterally and passed the order dated 09.08.2011. The enquiry report was forwarded by the second respondent in proceedings dated 14.10.2013 to the first respondent. Based on the report, the respondents have tabulated the irregularities in the appointments with reference to the findings http://www.judis.nic.inof the enquiry officer and the said details are extracted hereunder: 10
DATE OF APPOINTMENT/ PETITIONER/ CANCELLATION/ Sl. FINDINGS OF CATEGORY RE-
No INQUIRY OFFICER
APPOINTMENT/
RE-
CANCELLATION
(1) (2) (3) (4)
V.Parvathy 27.04.2007
13.10.2008 Had not called
Open
09.08.2011 personnel in the ration
1 Competition
05.12.2013 of 1:5. No marks had
Non-Priority
been given
Women
He had alone had been
selected from among
the 9 candidates who
appeared, based on
R.Ravi
physical strength. It's
2 BC Non-Priority -do-
not known how the
General
Appointment Committee
had awarded the marks
without examination by
a Doctor.
Only 8 marks ought to
have been awarded to
the personnel aged
between 31 to 40 years,
as per the Council
Resolution. Had this
M.Prakasam criterion been followed,
3 MBC Non- -do- one, R.Sampath, ought
Priority Women to have been appointed,
since he had been given
only 5 marks for the
same age of 36 years as
that of the Petitioner,
who had been given 8
marks.
S.Senthil Without obtaining the
MBC Non- names in the ratio of
4 Priority Women -do- 1:5, he had been
appointed in the ration
of 1:1
http://www.judis.nic.in
11
Candidates should have
completed 21 years of
age as on 1st July, as per
G.O.Ms.No.15, Rural
Development &
K.Somasundaram Panchayat Raj
5 MBC Non- -do- Department, dated
Priority Women 25.01.1988. Petitioner had been born on 04.02.1989. As on 01.07.2007, he had completed only 18 years and not 21 years.
No educational
qualification should
Mrs.P.Kaveri have been awarded 0
6 SC Non-Priority- -do- marks in the interview.
General But awarded 10 marks
& had been selected &
appointed.
S.Sarala
Open
7 -do- No marks list
Competition Non-
Priority Women
A.Singaram (Died 27.04.2007
Had not called
on 13.03.2014) 13.10.2008
8 personnel in the ratio of
MBC Non- 09.08.2011
1:5. No marks list.
Priority Women 05.12.2013
Had not called
personnel in the ratio of
1:5. In the interview on
26.04.2007, she had
S.Shanthi stated that she was not
9 BC Non-Priority -do- interest in the post of
Women scavenger. For the
interview on
23.10.2007, her name
alone had been
sponsored.
A.Chellapappa
The petitioner alone had
10 SC Non-Priority -do-
been sponsored.
Women
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
Had not called
personnel in the ratio of
Mrs.Chinna 27.04.2007
1:5. No physical
Ponnu 13.10.2008
strength. She had
(Died No order of
11 alleged that she had
13.03.2011) BC regularization
given Rs.50,000/-
Non-Priority passed, since she
as bribe, eventhough
Women died on 13.03.2011
she could not prove the
same.
15.In view of the irregularity committed by the fourth respondent based on the instructions from the Government, the first respondent Director of Town Panchayat, in proceedings dated 28.10.2013 had instructed the second respondent to cancel the illegal appointments of the writ petitioners and to take disciplinary proceedings against the fourth respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent in proceedings dated 02.12.2013 had cancelled the order of the fourth respondent on 09.08.2011 and instructed the fourth respondent to cancel the illegal appointments. Accordingly, the fourth respondent issued orders in proceedings dated 05.12.2013.
16.It is further contended that the selection process conducted by the appointment Committee was illegal inasmuch as the Committee has not followed the established procedures of recruitment. Therefore, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Director of Panchayat, Trichy and based on the report all further actions were initiated for cancellation of appointments and accordingly, the impugned orders were passed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13
17.It is relevant to consider the findings of the enquiry report dated 29.08.2008, which were made in detail. The criteria to be followed for the purpose of selection was already issued by the Government and the said criteria are extracted in the enquiry report as under:
“fhyp Jg;gu[ t[ gzaplq;fis g{h;jj; p bra;a epakdFG filgpof;f ntz;oa mog;gil jFjpfs; Fwpj;J ngU:uhl;rp Tl;lk; fPH;fz;lthW jPhk ; hdk; epiwntw;wpa[s;sJ. mjw;fhd kjpg;bgz;fSk; eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. (jPh;khd efy; ,izg;g[ 1-y; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.) jFjpfs; jug;gLk; kjpg;bgz;1.taJ 10 2.fy;tpj; jFjp 10 3.Kd; mDgtk; 10 4.cly; jpwd; 10
---
bkhj;jk; 40
1.taJ:
m) 30 tajpw;Fs; 10 kjpg;bgz;
M) 31 Kjy; 40 tajpw;Fs; 8 kjpg;bgz;
,) 40 taJf;F nky; 5 kjpg;bgz;
2.fy;tpj;jFjp:
m) vGj gof;fj; bjhpe;jth;fs; 10 kjpg;bgz;
M) gof;fhjth;fs; 0 kjpg;bgz;
3.Kd; mDtgtk;:
m) 10 tUlk; 5 kjpg;bgz;
M) 10 tUlk; Kjy; 20 tUlk; 8 kjpg;bgz;
,) 20 tUlj;jpw;F nky; 10 kjpg;bgz;
http://www.judis.nic.in
14
4.cly; jpwd; jFjp:
Jg;gu[ t[ gzpf;F ,j;jFjpjhd; kpf Kf;fpakhdjhFk;. vdnt neh;fhzypd; nghJ ghh;itapl;L ,j;jFjp Fwpj;J kjpg;bgz;fs; ,lg;gLk;.
nkw;Twpa jPh;khdk; 23.04.2007 md;W nkl;Lg;ghisak; ngU:uhl;rpfs; K:yk; epiwntw;wg;gl;Ls;sd.”
18.Annexure II of the enquiry report deals with the irregularities committed by the selection Committee on 26.04.2007, which is extracted hereunder:
“111. 26.04.2007 md;W eilbgw;w neh;fhzypy; epakd;FG bra;j jtWfs; S.C candidates (Non Priority- General) ,izg;g[ - 2 bgw;w kjpg;bgz;fs;
taJ fy;tp mDgtk; cly;jpwd; bkhj;j
jFjp kjpg;bgz;
(10) (10) (10) (10) (40)
1.jpU.gp.bry;tuh$; 8 10 - 8 26
2.gp.fhntup 5 10 8 9 32
3.jpU.Mh;.eluh$d; 5 10 8 6 29
4.jpU.gp.enlrd; 5 10 - 9 24
5.jpU.rp.Kj;ijah 5 10 - 8 23
6.jpU.gp.rPdpthrd; 5 10 8 7 30
xU fhypalg; gzpf;F S.C candidate xUth; bjhpt[ bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk;. epakdf;FG gp.fhnthp vd;gtiu mjpf kjpg;bgz;fs; mjhtJ 32 kjpg;bgz;fs; bgw;wjhy; njh;t[ bra;tjhf mwptj;J mtiu epakdk; bra;Js;sJ.
Mdhy; Mtzq;fis Th;e;jha;t[ bra;jjpy; gp.fhnthp vd;thpd; “fy;tpj;jFjp” vd;w fhyj;jpy;“gog;g[ ,y;iy”vd;Ws;sJ. Mdhy; fy;tp jFjpf;fhf 10 kjpg;bgz;fs; epakdf;FG http://www.judis.nic.in 15 tHq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. gof;fhjth;fSf;F“g{$;ak;”kjpg;bgz; tHq;f ntz;Lk; vd;W ngU:uhl;rp jPh;khdk; bra;Js;s epiyapy; gp.fhnthp vd;ttUf;F fy;tpj; jFjpf;fhf 10 kjpg;bgz;fs;“ep[akdf;FG” tHq;fpaJ jtW. me;j kjpg;bgz;fs; ePf;fpdhy; mth; bgw;w bkhj;j kjpg;bgz; 22(32-10=22) vd Fiwe;J tpLk;. jpU.Mh;.eluh $d; vd;gtUf;Fk; fy;tpj; jFjp “,y;iy”mtUf;Fk; 10 kjpg;bgz;fs;; fy;tpj; jFjpf;fhf tHq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Mdhy; mth; njh;t[ bra;aa;gltpy;iy.”
19.The irregularities or illegalities and non-adherence of the selection process were narrated on case to case basis by the enquiry officer and it is relevant to site all these aspects for the purpose of better appreciation of the issues raised in the present writ petition.
“IV.MBC -Non Priority -Women jpU.v[];.bre;jpy; vd;w xUth; kl;Lk; epakd FG Kd;g[ M$h; Mfp cs;shh;. mtUf;F epakdf;FGtpy; ve;j kjpg;bgz;fSk; tHq;fg;gltpy;iy. 1:5 vd;w mog;gilapy; ghh;f;Fk; nghJ> Fiwe;j gl;rk; 5 egh;fspd; bgah;fs; ntiy tha;g;g[ mYtyfk; K:yk; gl;oay; mDg;gg;gl;oUf;f ntz;Lk;. Mdhy; me;j eilKiw ifahsg;gltpy;iy.
V.MCB -Non Priority -Women (General) ,g;gphptpw;F 4 egh;fs; neh;Kffhzypy; M$uhfp cs;sdh;.
bgw;w kjpg;bgz;fs;
cly;jpwd; bkhj;j
taJ fy;tp mDgtk; jFjp kjpg;bgz;
(10) (10) (10) (10) (40)
1.jpU.vk.;gpufhrk; 8 10 - 9 27
2.jpU.V.rpq;fhuk; 8 10 - 4 22
3.jpU.Mh;.rk;gj; 5 10 8 3 26
http://www.judis.nic.in 4.jpU.gp.bry;nte;jpud; 10 10 - 6 26
16
,jpy; jpU.vk;.gpufhrk; vd;gth; mjpf kjpg;bgz; bgw;wth; vd;w mog;gilapy; epakdf; Fgthy; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;Ls;shh;.
Mdhy; ngU:uhl;rpapd; jPh;khdg;go 31 taJ Kjy; 40 taJ tiu cs;s egh;fSf;F 8 kjpg;bgz;fs; tHq;fg;gl ntz;Lk;. mjd;go 36 taJ cila jpU.vk;.gpufhrj;jpw;F 8 kjpg;bgz;fSk; mnj 36 taJila jpU.Mh;.rk;gj; mth;fSf;F 5 kjpg;bgz; je;jJ vt;thW? jpU.Mh;.rk;gj; vd;gtUf;F mtUila taJf;nfw;wgo rhpahd kjpg;bgz; je;jpUe;jhy; mth; bgw;w bkhj;j kjpg;bgz;fs; 26+ 3=29MFk;.
VII. BC -Non Priority -Women ,g;gphpt[f;F jpUkjp.rpd;dg;bghz;Z vd;gth; bgah; kl;Lnk ntiy tha;g;g[ mYtyfj;jhy; gl;oay; mDg;gg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,tUf;F fy;tp jFjp ,y;iy. fy;tp jFjp cs;sth; gl;oaiy 1:5 vd;w mog;gilapy; khtl;l ntiytha;g;g[ mYtyfj;jpy; bgw;W neh;fhzy; bra;jpUf;fyhk;. Mdhy; me;jKiw ifahsg;gltpy;i. ngU:uhl;rpapd; jPh;khdg;go md;dhUf;F xt;bthU jFjpf;Fk; tHq;fpa kjpg;bgz;fs; tptuk; mwpaKoatpy;iy. tprhuiz neh;fhzypd; nghJ jpUkjp.rpd;dg;bghz;Z nghjpa cly; jFjp jpwd; cs;stuhf bjhpatpy;iy. kUj;Jt mYtyh; cs;slf;fpa “epakdf;FG”kl;Lnk cly; jFjp jpwd; msit eph;zapf;f Koa[k; vd;gnj tprhuiz mYtyhpd; fUj;jhFk;. jiyth;> bray; mYtyh;> thh;L cWg;gpdh; bfhz;l FG ve;j mog;gilapy; cly; jFjp jpwid eph;zak; bra;jdh; vd;gij mwpaKoatpy;iy. nkYk; tprhuiz neh;fhzypy; ngU:uhl;rp jiyth; jpU.vd;.nahfehjDf;F Kd;ghfnt jpUkjp.rpd;dg;bghz;Z ,e;j epakdj;jpw;F U:.50>000/- ifa{l;L je;jjhf gfpuq;fkhf Twpdhh;.
v];.rhe;jp vd;w bgz;iz epakdf;FG njh;t[ bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;w xnu fhuzj;jpw;fhf md;dhhpd; bgaiu kl;Lk; ntiy tha;g;g[ mYtyfj;jpy; vg;gonah bgw;W epakdk; bra;jpUg;gJ mjpfhu J\;gpunahfk; ele;jjw;F vLj;Jf;fhl;lhf cs;sJ.
“the candidates for the appointment to the posts of Sweepers and Sanitary Workers should have been completed 21 years of age on the 1st day of July of the year in which the selection is made”.
http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Mdhy; jpU.nf.nrhkRe;juk; vd;gth; 04.02.1989 md;Wjhd; gpwe;Js;sh;. mg;go vd;why; 01.01.2007 md;W (neh;fhzy; gl;oay;go) 18 taJ g{h;j;jp Mftpy;iy (under age)nkw;Twpa muR Mizg;go ghh;j;jhy; 01.07.2007 md;W 18 taJjhd; g{h;j;jp Mfpa[s;sJ. muR Mizg;go 01.07.2007 md;W 21 taJ g{h;j;jpahfp ,Uf;f ntz;Lk;.
01.07.2007 md;W 231 taJ g{h;j;jpahfhj jpU.nf.nrhkRe;juk; vd;gtiu e[pakdf;FG epakdk; bra;jJ muR Mizf;F vjpuhd bray; kw;Wk; Kiwaw;w epakdk; (Irregular appointment) vd;gJ kpfj; bjspthf epU:gzkhfpwJ.
gp.fhnthp vd;gtUf;F fy;tp mwpt[ ,y;yhj gl;rj;jpy;> fy;tpj; jFjpf;F 10 kjpg;bgz;fs; tHq;fpaJ jtW. rhe;jp. Rush> bry;yg;ghg;gh ,th;fs; Jg;g[ut[ gzpahsh;fshf epakpf;fg;gl;lhYk;> thp tR{y; bra;jJ> jpU.utp> gpufh\; ,UtUk; Jg;g[ut[ gzp ghh;f;fhky; mYtyfg; gzp ghh;j;jJ> jpU.nf.nrhkRe;juk; vd;gtUf;F 18 taJ g{h;j;jpahfky; njh;t[ bra;jJ jtW vd;gd nghd;wtw;iw> jkJ ufrpa thf;FK:yj;jpy; TwpapUg;gJ tprhuiz mwpf;ifapy; bjspthf Twpa[s;s \uj;Jf;fSf;F rhd;whf mike;Js;sJ. (thf;FK:yk; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ).”
20.Entire perusal of the enquiry report dated 29.08.2008 reveals that the illegalities and irregularities were committed in respect of the appointments of all these writ petitioners. Each case was dealt with independently by the enquiry officer and the respective illegalities are narrated based on the documents and informations provided. There is no reason to disbelieve the findings of the enquiry officer. The enquiry report was again considered by the District Collector as well as by the Director of Town Panchayats and thereafter, suitable orders were issued to cancel the appointments of all these writ petitioners. Therefore, the opportunity was also provided to defend the case to the writ http://www.judis.nic.in 18 petitioners. The manner in which the selections were made is unambiguous that the selection Committee selected and appointed candidates at their choice and on extraneous consideration. This being the factum, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appointments of the writ petitioners were illegal and made without following the procedures contemplated under law.
21.The continuance of the writ petitioners in service from the year 2008 is based on the interim orders of this Court and therefore, the same cannot be a ground to validate the appointment. Any litigious continuance in service would not provide any ground for validating the illegal appointments otherwise made.
22.Though the involvement of the writ petitioners in such illegalities are denied by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, the same cannot be required in view of the fact that the entire process of selection was established as illegal and there were many corrupt activities and irregularities. The petitioners were found not fully qualified and suitable for appointment in comparison with the other candidates, who participated in the process of selection. This being the factum established, the http://www.judis.nic.incorrectness of the appointment cannot be now upheld by this 19 Court.
23.Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioners have not established that their appointments were made in accordance with law and by following the procedures contemplated. Contrarily, the respondents have clearly established that the appointments were made by the fourth respondent at his whims and fancies and on extraneous considerations. Thus, the appointments were illegal and irregular.
24.Under these circumstances, the respondents are bound to conduct a fresh selection by issuing a recruitment notification by providing equal opportunity to all the eligible persons who all are aspiring to secure employment. In the event of issuing any such recruitment notification, the petitioners are also at liberty to participate by submitting an application with reference to the terms and conditions of the recruitment and in accordance with the rules in force.
http://www.judis.nic.in 20
25.With this liberty to the writ petitioners, the orders of cancellation of appointments are confirmed and accordingly, all these writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
10.07.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MR
http://www.judis.nic.in
21
To
1.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam, Chenna.
2.The Collector,
Trichy District, Trichy.
3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Trichy Zone, Trichy.
4.The Executive Officer, Mettupalayam, Town Panchayat, Trichy District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 22 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
MR COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P[MD]Nos.20490 to 20499 of 2013 10.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in