High Court · 2024

W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON: 26.06.2024DELIVERED ON: 08.08.2024CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMARACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUW.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022and CMP.Nos.19185 and 22079 of 2022Savitha .. . Appellant in W.A.No.2463/2022/ Respondent No.3 in W.A.No.2719/2022Vs1. Latha Makesh .. Respondent No.1 in W.A.No.2463/2022/ Appellant in W.A.No.2719 of 20222. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai 606 755.3. The Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai District... Respondents 2 & 3 in W.A.No.2463/2022 Respondents 1 & 2 in W.A.No.2719/20221 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022 Prayer in both Writ Appeal : Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.09.2022 in W.P.No.33955 of 2016. For Appellant in : Mr. A.K.Kumarasamy, Sr. CounselW.A.No.2463/2022 for Mr.S.Kaithamalai KumaranFor Appellant in : Ms.T.HemalathaW.A.No.2719/2022For Official Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar, A.A.G. Asst. By S.Prabhakaran, G.A.********* COMMON JUDGMENTD.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACJ.Aggrieved by the order passed by the writ court in W.P.No.33955 of 2016 dated 15.09.2022, the present writ appeals have been filed by the appellants. For the sake of breviety, the ranking of parties in W.A.No.2463 of 2022 is adopted.Facts in brief:2. The appellant was appointed as a Nutritious Meal Organizer by the second respondent, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.10791/14/NMS-1 dated 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 202229.2.2016, impugned in the instant writ petition. The first respondent, Co-sister of the appellant herein/appellant in W.A.No.2719 of 2022 challenged the said order of appointment before the Writ Court in W.P.No.33955 of 2016. According to the appellant, the first respondent is economically better placed than the appellant and she is running a private school and she is also a cable operator. According to the first respondent, she participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organiser at Panchayat Union Middle School, Kallanai in Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union and attended the interview and submitted all the requestite documents for consideration and though she has secured higher marks than the appellant, she has not been appointed and therefore, she has filed the writ petition challenging the order appointing the apellant as Noon Meal Organizer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that based on the economic condition of the candidates, the interview Committee has assessed the merits and granted marks and there is no illegality in the selection of the appellant by the second respondent and therefore, prays for allowing of this writ appeal and setting aside the order of the Writ Court. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 20224. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent mainly contended that the first respondent scored higher marks than that of the appellant, but she was not considered for selection, on the contrary, the appellant, who scored lesser marks was issued with an appointment order on extraneous consideration and thus, she filed the writ petition to aside the appointment order issued in favour of the appellant.5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the official respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the original records containing the marks awarded in the interview committee which reveals that the respondent was awarded 33 marks in the interview by the Selection Committee, whereas the appellant was awarded 26 marks. 6. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.7. The undisputed fact remains that the dispute is with regard to the appointment of the appellant as the Noon-Meal Organizer and the first 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022respondent/writ petitioner is none other than her co-sister. The Writ Court recorded a finding that the marks awarded by the Interview Committee cannot be interfered by this Court, while exercising the powers of judicial review and if at all, the third respondent doubt about the marks awarded, the same cannot be accepted in the absence of any incriminating evidence. The Writ Court further recorded that as per the statement furnished by the learned Additional Advocate General, the first respondent has secured 33 marks and whereas the appellant who has secured only 26 marks was given appointment and thus, the Writ Court held that the appointment of the appellant in the post of Noon Meal Organiser is in violation of the procedure contemplated under the rules and illegal and therefore, quashed the impugned proceedings in Na.K.No.10791/14/NMS-1 dated 29.2.2016 and directed the respondents to fill up the post by way of fresh recruitment by following the procedure as contemplated under the Recruitment Rules.8. This Court has also summoned the original records and perused the same. A perusal of the original records reveals that marks were awarded and written separately by using pen in respect of column Nos.4 to 11, 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022namely Educational Qualification, Age, Gender, Distance between the residence and the Noon Meal Centre, Destitude / Widow, Physically Challenged, Economic Situtation, Previous Knowledge on Noon Meal Scheme etc., in respect of all the candidates. Curiously in Col. No.13 i.e. Total Marks awarded, it is written in pencil for all the candidates. Further there seems to be some over-writing in column No.10 viz., Economic situtation of the candidates, which raises a serious doubt that there is every chance of manipulation of marks. Even as per the original records produced, the first respondent has secured 33 marks and whereas the appellant has secured 26 marks and when such being the position, it is not known how the appellant has been appointed as Noon Meal Organizer. The procedure adopted by the official respondents is highly depricable and highhanded. The Writ Court has rightly quashed the impugned proceedings appointing the appellant as the Noon Meal Organizer and directed the respondents 1 to 2 to fill up the post by way of fresh recruitment by following the procedures as contemplated under the recruitment rules. The order of the writ Court is perfectly valid and does not warrant any intereference by this Court. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 20229. With the above observations, these writ appeals are dismissed, confirming the order of the Writ Court. No costs.[D.K.K., ACJ.,] [K.B., J.] 08.08.2024Index: yes/no Internet:yesSpeaking Order/Non speaking order JvmTo1. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai 606 755.2. The Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai District.7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACJ.&K. KUMARESH BABU, J.JvmCommon Judgment inW.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 202208.08.20248

W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON: 26.06.2024DELIVERED ON: 08.08.2024CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMARACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUW.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022and CMP.Nos.19185 and 22079 of 2022Savitha .. . Appellant in W.A.No.2463/2022/ Respondent No.3 in W.A.No.2719/2022Vs1. Latha Makesh .. Respondent No.1 in W.A.No.2463/2022/ Appellant in W.A.No.2719 of 20222. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai 606 755.3. The Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai District... Respondents 2 & 3 in W.A.No.2463/2022 Respondents 1 & 2 in W.A.No.2719/20221 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022 Prayer in both Writ Appeal : Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 15.09.2022 in W.P.No.33955 of 2016. For Appellant in : Mr. A.K.Kumarasamy, Sr. CounselW.A.No.2463/2022 for Mr.S.Kaithamalai KumaranFor Appellant in : Ms.T.HemalathaW.A.No.2719/2022For Official Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar, A.A.G. Asst. By S.Prabhakaran, G.A.********* COMMON JUDGMENTD.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACJ.Aggrieved by the order passed by the writ court in W.P.No.33955 of 2016 dated 15.09.2022, the present writ appeals have been filed by the appellants. For the sake of breviety, the ranking of parties in W.A.No.2463 of 2022 is adopted.Facts in brief:2. The appellant was appointed as a Nutritious Meal Organizer by the second respondent, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.10791/14/NMS-1 dated 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 202229.2.2016, impugned in the instant writ petition. The first respondent, Co-sister of the appellant herein/appellant in W.A.No.2719 of 2022 challenged the said order of appointment before the Writ Court in W.P.No.33955 of 2016. According to the appellant, the first respondent is economically better placed than the appellant and she is running a private school and she is also a cable operator. According to the first respondent, she participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organiser at Panchayat Union Middle School, Kallanai in Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union and attended the interview and submitted all the requestite documents for consideration and though she has secured higher marks than the appellant, she has not been appointed and therefore, she has filed the writ petition challenging the order appointing the apellant as Noon Meal Organizer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that based on the economic condition of the candidates, the interview Committee has assessed the merits and granted marks and there is no illegality in the selection of the appellant by the second respondent and therefore, prays for allowing of this writ appeal and setting aside the order of the Writ Court. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 20224. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent mainly contended that the first respondent scored higher marks than that of the appellant, but she was not considered for selection, on the contrary, the appellant, who scored lesser marks was issued with an appointment order on extraneous consideration and thus, she filed the writ petition to aside the appointment order issued in favour of the appellant.5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the official respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the original records containing the marks awarded in the interview committee which reveals that the respondent was awarded 33 marks in the interview by the Selection Committee, whereas the appellant was awarded 26 marks. 6. Heard the parties and perused the materials available on record.7. The undisputed fact remains that the dispute is with regard to the appointment of the appellant as the Noon-Meal Organizer and the first 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022respondent/writ petitioner is none other than her co-sister. The Writ Court recorded a finding that the marks awarded by the Interview Committee cannot be interfered by this Court, while exercising the powers of judicial review and if at all, the third respondent doubt about the marks awarded, the same cannot be accepted in the absence of any incriminating evidence. The Writ Court further recorded that as per the statement furnished by the learned Additional Advocate General, the first respondent has secured 33 marks and whereas the appellant who has secured only 26 marks was given appointment and thus, the Writ Court held that the appointment of the appellant in the post of Noon Meal Organiser is in violation of the procedure contemplated under the rules and illegal and therefore, quashed the impugned proceedings in Na.K.No.10791/14/NMS-1 dated 29.2.2016 and directed the respondents to fill up the post by way of fresh recruitment by following the procedure as contemplated under the Recruitment Rules.8. This Court has also summoned the original records and perused the same. A perusal of the original records reveals that marks were awarded and written separately by using pen in respect of column Nos.4 to 11, 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022namely Educational Qualification, Age, Gender, Distance between the residence and the Noon Meal Centre, Destitude / Widow, Physically Challenged, Economic Situtation, Previous Knowledge on Noon Meal Scheme etc., in respect of all the candidates. Curiously in Col. No.13 i.e. Total Marks awarded, it is written in pencil for all the candidates. Further there seems to be some over-writing in column No.10 viz., Economic situtation of the candidates, which raises a serious doubt that there is every chance of manipulation of marks. Even as per the original records produced, the first respondent has secured 33 marks and whereas the appellant has secured 26 marks and when such being the position, it is not known how the appellant has been appointed as Noon Meal Organizer. The procedure adopted by the official respondents is highly depricable and highhanded. The Writ Court has rightly quashed the impugned proceedings appointing the appellant as the Noon Meal Organizer and directed the respondents 1 to 2 to fill up the post by way of fresh recruitment by following the procedures as contemplated under the recruitment rules. The order of the writ Court is perfectly valid and does not warrant any intereference by this Court. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 20229. With the above observations, these writ appeals are dismissed, confirming the order of the Writ Court. No costs.[D.K.K., ACJ.,] [K.B., J.] 08.08.2024Index: yes/no Internet:yesSpeaking Order/Non speaking order JvmTo1. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai 606 755.2. The Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai District.7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 2022D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACJ.&K. KUMARESH BABU, J.JvmCommon Judgment inW.A.No. 2463 of 2022 and 2719 of 202208.08.20248