High Court · 2025

W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 2020BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 18.08.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANandTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARWA(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 2020and CMP(MD)Nos.1167 & 2233 of 2020 in WA(MD)No.161 of 2020 : - S.Ganesan... Appellant / 3rd respondent vs.1.G.Madathi ...1st respondent / writ petitioner2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents 2 & 3 / Respondents 1 & 2Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 30.08.2019 in WP(MD)No.328 of 2016. 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 2020For Appellant: Mr.Mohamed ZamilFor Respondents: Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate for R2 and R3 in WA(MD)No.315 of 2020 : - 1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.2.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. ... Appellants / Respondents 1 & 2vs.1.G.Madathi ...1st respondent / writ petitioner2.S.Ganesan ... Respondent / 3rd Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 30.08.2019 in WP(MD)No.328 of 2016. For Appellant: Mr.N.Ramesh ArumugamFor Respondents: Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus for R1 Mr.Mohamed Zamil for R2 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 2020JUDGMENT(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)These appeals are directed against the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(MD)No.328 of 2016 filed by one Madathi. Vacancy arose in the post of Office Assistant in the Panchayat Union, Tiruchendur. A number of persons applied in response to the recruitment notification dated 17.04.2015. Selection Committee was constituted and the Selection Committee short-listed three names, namely, K.Maheshwari, K.Madathi and S.Sathya. The short-listing was based on the interview that was held on 11.06.2015. Mr.S.Ganesan was not selected. However, later, based on the panchayat resolution dated 28.08.2015, he was appointed as Office Assistant. This was put to challenge in WP(MD)No.328 of 2016. After carefully going through the entire records, the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms : “10. A perusal of the interview report dated 11.06.2015 would clearly show that no priority certificate has been produced by the third respondent at the time of interview. Further, it is seen from the Office Memo dated 11.06.2015 that the second respondent has shortlisted three candidates, wherein the name of the third respondent was not found place, whereas, the name of the petitioner was found place. The reason for non-3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 2020selection of the third respondent has also been stated in the Office Memo that “original certificate of inter-caste marriage has not been produced”. 11.According to the third respondent, he has produced the priority certificate at the time of interview, but, a perusal of the records clearly shows that the original priority certificate has not been produced by the third respondent at the time of interview and to that effect, an entry has also been made in the interview report. However, the second respondent selected and appointed the third respondent to the post of Office Assistant, which is contrary to the entries made in the Office Memo and the same cannot be accepted. 12.Further, a perusal of the Office Memo in the original original records reveals that the following 10 candidates have attended the interview, conducted on 11.06.2015. 1.gh.kNf];tu Mde;j;jpUr;nre;J}h;2.R.rpjk;gu nry;tpfhay;gl;lzk;.3.v];.mdpjhNrJf;Ftha;j;jhd;4.fp.kNf];thpJ}j;Jf;Fb5.uh.rptfhkpfhay;gl;lzk;6.Nf.khlj;jpthyRg;gpukzpak;7.tp.v];.Nf.me;Njhzpak;khs;tPughz;baGuk;8.v];.fNzrd; J}j;Jf;Fb9.v];.rj;jpahtPukhzpf;fk;10.R.tp[ayl;Rkpmilf;fyhGuk;.4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 202014.It is also noted in the Office Memo that among the said three candidates shortlisted, one candidate has to be selected for the post of Office Assistant by the Appointment Committee. Further, it is stated that the remaining 7 candidates have been rejected for the reasons stated therein. In so far as the third respondent herein is concerned, he has not produced the original priority category certificate at the time of interview. It is also pertinent to note that no reason had been mentioned in the Office Memo in respect of appointment of the third respondent, instead, it was simply stated that the third respondent was selected and appointed as an Office Assistant by the Appointment Committee. 15.Further, from the perusal of the original records, this Court is not able to find out any reason for rejection of the aforesaid three candidates, who have been already selected by the second respondent. During the interview process, the name of the third respondent was not found place and his name was rejected on the ground that he did not produce the original inter-caste marriage certificate and subsequently, without giving an opportunity to the 3 shortlisted candidates, the Appointment Committee has straight away appointed the third respondent, viz., Ganesan, whose name was not found in the shortlisted candidates and also there is no specific reason assigned for not selecting a candidate among the 3 candidates, who have been already shortlisted by the Appointment Committee. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 202016.It is seen from the entry made on 11.06.2015 that among the three candidates, one candidate has to be selected for the post of Office Assistant by the Appointment Committee. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the third respondent as Office Assistant is not just and proper and no fair procedure has been adopted by the second respondent in selecting and appointing the third respondent as Office Assistant in the respondent Panchayat. As stated earlier, there is no reason stated in the original records or in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent for not selecting a candidate among the 3 shortlisted candidates. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned order of the second respondent and to remit the matter to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 17.In fine, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the second respondent is quashed and the matter is remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration as per relevant Rules and in accordance with law, based on the applications submitted by the eligible candidates as well as the interview conducted on 11.06.2015. The selection process shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”Aggrieved by the same, the District Administration as well as Thiru.Ganesan have filed these writ appeals. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 20202.The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for Mr.Ganesan is that he was not short-listed only for the simple reason that he did not produce the priority certificate. This was later produced and that is how resolution was passed by the local body to consider him also. The learned counsel drew our attention to the communication dated 01.07.2019 issued by the District Collector, Thoothukudi in this regard. 3.We are not impressed with this contention. The fact remains that the process was concluded on 11.06.2015. Only three persons including the writ petitioner were short listed. Thiru.Ganesan was nowhere in the picture. When once the selection committee had taken certain steps, it should have been taken to its logical conclusion. Instead of doing so, the entire issue was revisited. That is why, the learned Single Judge set aside the order impugned in the writ petition. The findings of the learned Single Judge are in consonance with the file records. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is sustained.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 20204.These writ appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,) 18.08.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ NoSKMTo2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.3.The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 2020G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.andK.RAJASEKAR, J.SKMWA(MD)Nos.161 & 315 of 2020and CMP(MD)Nos.1167 & 2233 of 2020 18.08.20259/9