K.Savithiri v. The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.8.2009CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIWrit Petition No.646 of 2009K.Savithiri..Petitioner Vs.1. The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri.2. The District Program Officer WBA ICDS Dharmapuri.3. Amudha..Respondents-----Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingfor a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the recordsrelating to the appointment order passed by the first respondent videSa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1964/Aa1/2007 dated 11.11.2008 and quash the same andfurther direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner for thepost of Anganvadi Helper in Setrapatti Center, Harur Union,Dharmapuri District.-----For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Kalai SelvanFor Respondents 1&2 : Mr.Arun, Addl.G.P. For Respondent 3: Mr.K.S.Sethuraman-----O R D E RThe writ petitioner, who is stated to have studied upto 6thstandard, having two children and husband alive, capable of readingand writing, has applied for the post of Anganvadi Helper inSetrapatti Centre, Harur Union and she also attended the interview.According to her, she was selected and a list was published by thesecond respondent on 13.6.2008. However, the impugned order came tobe passed by the first respondent/District Collector dated 11.11.2008selecting the third respondent to that post. Challenge is made tothe appointment of the third respondent as Anganvadi Helper on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ground that the petitioner is more qualified than the thirdrespondent, that the petitioner was in fact selected by the secondrespondent as per the list published and was subsequently changed andthat the petitioner could read and write well, when the thirdrespondent cannot read and write and therefore, the appointment ofthe third respondent is illegal.2. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, itis stated that the petitioner, third respondent and one Mageswariwere short listed from the candidates who have applied for the saidpost and the said list was published on 13.6.2008. After publicationof the short list, the above said three candidates were called forand the first respondent has selected the third respondent. It isalso stated that the third respondent was a resident of the sameVillage and senior in age, apart from the fact that she is a widowand having two female children. On the other hand, the petitioner is26 years old and living with her husband and therefore, consideringthe petitioner and the third respondent, the third respondent wasselected on the basis of the guidelines. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it isstated that she is the resident of the same Village and she wasselected based on the performance in the interview, while thepetitioner is junior in age. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced therecords. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioneris that in the list published as short list on 13.6.2008, in the nameof the third respondent, it is stated as widow, same area, aged 34years and not able to read. On the other hand, the petitioner, whois stated as No.2 in the list, is stated as 27 years, belonging tothe same area and able to read. There is one other candidateV.Mageswari, who is also stated to be a widow of 40 years, unable toread. According to him, the said list should be taken as a selectionlist, since, as per the said list, the petitioner being indicated asthe second person, is, admittedly, a person who is able to read andas per the guideline, the person who is able to read should be givenpriority. On the other hand, the records show that it is not aselection list, but, it is only a short list of eligible candidates,who would be subsequently selected by the process of selection. Theshort list was published on 13.6.2008, while the selection was madesubsequently, which resulted in the appointment order issued to thethird respondent on 11.11.2008 and therefore, the contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioner that the short list should betreated as selection list is not sustainable. 6. The further contention of the petitioner which requires https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration is that among the petitioner and the third respondent,the third respondent is stated in the short list as a person unableto read, while the petitioner is stated as a person able to read andtherefore, among the petitioner and the third respondent, thepetitioner should have been given preference. In the records, eventhough it is stated that the third respondent is unable to read, butshe belong to the same area, the Collector has made an endorsementthat during the time of interview, the third respondent was able toread and write. The records also show that the third respondent has,in fact, signed the application form filling up various contents byherself on 25.8.2009. Therefore, it is stated that the DistrictCollector, even though stated in the short list that the thirdrespondent was unable to read, has himself verified during the timeof interview and found that the third respondent was able to read andwrite and taking note of the said fact, along with additional factorthat she is a widow, the third respondent came to be selected. 7. In my considered opinion, there is absolutely no illegalityor impropriety in the selection of the third respondent. Merelybecause certain statement has been made in the short list about theability of the third respondent not to read and write, which is foundotherwise in the interview, the petitioner is not entitled tochallenge the appointment order. The guideline, as produced beforethis Court, shows that it is only among the persons who participatein the interview, following factors are sought to be taken intoconsideration (i) persons should be from the same village; (ii) must know reading and writing; and(iii)destitute and widows should be given preference.8. In such circumstances, when the petitioner and the thirdrespondent are equal in respect of the first two requirements, onlythe third respondent being a widow has been given preference, whichcannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. In such view ofthe matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed inthe writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition fails. However,it is made clear that if any such vacancy arises, the firstrespondent shall consider the name of the petitioner, if she isotherwise eligible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaidobservation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkplTo1. The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri.2. The District Program Officer WBA ICDS Dharmapuri.+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 42375+1cc to Mr.A.E.Kalaiselvan, Advocate Sr 42128+1cc to Mr.E.Rajesh, Advocate Sr 41742RSI(CO)km/15.9.W.P.No.646 of 2009.