S.Mathi v. The District Revenue Officer, Nagai Quaid-E-millet District, Nagapattinam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.06.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.30433 of 2006S.Mathi.. Petitioner /ApplicantVs.1.The District Revenue Officer, Nagai Quaid-E-millet District, Nagapattinam.2.M.Panneerselvam... Respondents /RespondentsThis writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the firstrespondent in Na.Ka.66596/95/I2 and to quash the order dated20.12.96 passed therein and to direct the first respondent todispose of the review application of the second respondent inaccordance with the directions of the Tribunal, dated 7.2.1996 inO.A.No.6270 of 1995. For Petitioner: Mr.R.RaviFor Respondents: Mr.P.Gurunathan, GA for R1 Mr.T.Arulraj for R2- - - - ORDERThe petitioner filed O.A.No.801 of 1997, seeking to challengethe revisional order of the first respondent, dated 20.12.96. Inview of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferredto this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.30433 of 2006.2.The petitioner was the resident of Pudukudi Village. Thepost of Village Servant of the said village became vacant onaccount of the retirement of one Rathinam, who belonged to the AdiDravida Community. In order to fill up the vacancy, the Tahsildarof Kudavasal Taluk called for applications. The petitioner and thesecond respondent made their applications claiming the said post.While the petitioner belonged to the Backward class, the secondrespondent belonged to the Adi Dravidar Community. The Tahsildarfound the petitioner belonging to Kallar Community, which is notrepresented in the village and the other two posts were held by theVellalar Community and Adi Dravida community and the villagedominated by Kallar Community, which was the majority community inthe village, gave the appointment to the petitioner. 3.The second respondent preferred an appeal to the RDO,Nagapattinam. The appellate authority confirmed the appointment byhis order dated 9.8.94. Subsequently, the second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preferred a revision petition to the first respondent herein by arevision dated 19.9.94. It was contended that the selection made bythe Tahsildar was on erroneous grounds and he ought not to havegiven any preference to the petitioner, which is not prescribedunder Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules,1980.4.The first respondent, by his order, dated 19.9.95 allowedthe revision and set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar andthe RDO. He directed the appointment of the second respondent onthe ground that since everything being equal, the secondrespondent being a Dalit, can be preferred for the said post.Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6270 of 1995 before theTribunal. 5.The Tribunal set aside the revisional order. In paragraphs 6and 7of the order, the Tribunal directed as follows:"6. ...It is for the District Revenue Officer toassess the irrelevant consideration and then passorders. According to the Rules and other instructionsif any and other Government orders, if any, regardingsuch appointment. As I have already pointed out, theimpugned order cannot be sustained and so the matter isto be remitted back to the first respondent, for freshconsideration and passing fresh orders, in the light ofthe observations made in this order. 7.In view of the above, the application is allowedand the order of the first respondent inNa.Ka.65490/94-12, dated 19.9.95 is quashed. Thematter is remitted back to the first respondent forpassing order, according to rules and in the light ofthe observations made in this order. He is furtherdirected to pass order within a period of three months.For the said period of three months, the person who isnow working as Village Assistant in Pudukkudi villageshall continue to work, as Village Assistant."6.On remand by the Tribunal, the first respondent by theorder, dated 20.12.96, once again allowed the revision filed bythe second respondent and set aside the order of the Tahsildar,dated 31.7.92 and the confirmation order passed by the RDO,Nagapattinam, dated 9.6.94. He also directed the appointment of thesecond respondent as a Village Servant. In that order, it wasstated that the Secretary to Revenue Department, Government ofTamil Nadu, by a letter, dated 10.5.89, had informed that whileappointing the Village servants, Adi dravidars can be givenpreference, if they are majority in number in a village. He alsostated that there was no disqualification for the second respondentfrom being appointed. Apart from that, he found that the secondrespondent had worked as a temporary Village Servant for one year,whereas the petitioner had worked only for 6 months. Though thepetitioner contended that the second respondent was involved incrime No.227/84 at Kudavasal police station and he was arraigned asthe third accused, no materials were produced for proving the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It is against this order, the petitioner filed the O.A. No.801 of1997 once again before the Tribunal. 7.The petitioner did not have the benefit of any interimorder. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has fileda reply affidavit, dated 25.11.98. He stoutly denied the allegationthat the revisional order was passed on communal angle. The furtherallegation that it was despatched while the first respondent was onan order of transfer was also denied. It was also stated that thesecond respondent had more experience than the petitioner. 8.The Supreme Court while considering the case of theappointment of a Village Servant, delineated the limits ofjudicial intervention by the High Court in its recent decision inMahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC439. In paragraphs 20, 21, 26 to 28, it has been observed asfollows:"20.The High Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia is basically concerned with the correctness ofthe decision-making process and not the merit of thedecision. It has not been found by the High Court thatthe Collector in expressing his opinion as regardscomparative merit of the appellant vis-a-vis Respondent1 committed an error in his decision-makingprocess. ...21.It is, therefore, not a case where the findingof the Collector can be said to be perverse. It hasalso not been established that the said statutoryauthority while taking a decision failed to take intoconsideration the relevant facts or based its decisionon extraneous considerations or on irrelevant factorsnot germane therefor. ....26.There cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoeverthat a writ court could interfere with a finding offact when the same inter alia is found to be perverse.However, neither any such finding has been arrived atby the High Court nor do we find any and as such thedecision of this Court relied upon by Mr.Mahajan inBhagat Ram v. Stage of H.P. cannot be said to have anyapplication whatsoever in this case.27.The High Court furthermore failed to take intoconsideration that while exercising its power ofjudicial review, it exercises a limited jurisdiction.The court, it is well settled, is ordinarily concernedwith the decision-making process and not the merit ofthe decision.28.It also cannot be said that the equity lies infavour of Respondent 1. Even otherwise, when respectivemerit of the candidates is taken into consideration,equity has hardly any role to play."9.In the present case, the order passed by the Tahsildar(Kudvasal) and the RDO (Nagapattinam) is clearly erroneous. Almost,they have decided the issue on the ground of a non existent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ communal quota and that the majority community was not representedin the village. However, the first respondent, being the revisionalauthority had kept in his mind the remit order passed by theTribunal and took into account the relevant considerations. 10.Therefore, in the light of the above factual matrix as wellas the legal precedent set out above, it is not a fit case wherethis court can grant any relief to the petitioner. The writpetition is accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no orderas to costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvvkToThe District Revenue Officer,Nagai Quaid-E-millet District,Nagapattinam.W.P.NO.30433 OF 2006PUR(CO)SRA(11/6/2009)