Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Perusal of the revised communication, dated 11.07.2011, of the second respondent shows that the petitioner has been informed of the mistake that had crept in the first communication, dated 29.06.2011. The later communication has also been acknowledged by the writ petitioner, a copy of…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED:22/07/2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMARWrit Petition (MD)No.7877 of 2011H.Sathiya: Petitioner-Vs-1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
The Child Welfare Officer, Sivagangai District.
The District Nutrition Officer, District Nutrition Office, Periyar Nagar, Sivagangai District4.Saranya: RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner as an Anganwadi worker in Azhagamanagarivillage, Sivagangai District on the basis of the second respondent'sproceedings in Na.Ka.No.245/2011 dated 29.06.2011 and on the basis of thepetitioner's representation dated 06.07.2011.For petitioner ...Mr.K.A.S.PrabhuFor respondents...Mr.S.Chandrasekar, Government AdvocateORDERThe petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to issue an order of appointment to her as Anganwadi Worker in Azhagamanagari Village, Sivagangai District, on the basis of the proceedings of the Child Welfare Officer, Sivagangai District, in R.C.No. 245/2011,dated 29.06.2011, and on the basis of her representation, dated 06.07.2011.2.It is the case of the petitioner that she appeared for an interview on 17.02.2010 for the post of Anganwadi Worker in AzhagamanagariVillage, Sivagangai District, pursuant to a letter, dated 15.02.2010.
15candidates participated in the interview and as the petitioner was the most qualified candidate, she was selected. But no appointment order was issued. In view of the same, the petitioner sent a representation dated 02.06.2011,to the District Nutrition Officer, Sivagangai District, the third respondent herein, under the Right to Information Act 2005. A reply, dated 29.06.2011,was sent by the Child Welfare officer, Sivagangai District, the second respondent herein, in R.C.No.245 of 2011, stating the petitioner has already been selected for the said post. 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 15.07.2011,Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate was directed to get instructions. On this day, on instructions, he submitted that the post of Anganwadi Worker in Azhagamanagari Village, Sivagangai District, had already been filled up on 15.02.2011 itself by the orders of the District Collector, in Rc.No.3824/A1/2009, appointing the fourth respondent.
He further submitted that the communication, dated 29.06.2011, sent to the writ petitioner, which has given rise to the filing of the writ petition, was amistake. Instead of not selected, due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake, the petitioner was communicated as if she was selected to the post of Anganwadi worker in Azhagamanagari Village, Sivagangai District. Rectifyingthe mistake, a fresh communication, dated 11.07.2011, has been sent by the Child Welfare Officer, Sivagangai, the second respondent herein, explaining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2as to how the mistake occurred and that the petitioner has also acknowledged, the receipt of the information. The said acknowledgment, containing the signature of the writ petitioner has been produced before this Court. He further contended that only after the revised communication, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed the writ petition on14.07.2011 suppressing the receipt of the revised communication. As the petitioner was not selected for the post of Anganwadi worker, in Azhagamanagari Village, Sivagangai District, which was duly communicated, hestated that there is no question of issuing a mandamus in terms of an erroneous communication and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.
Perusal of the copy of the proceedings in Rc.No.3824/A1/2009,dated 15.02.2011, of the District Collector, Sivagangai District, shows that the fourth respondent has already been appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Azhagamanagari Village, Sivagangai District, in the scale of pay of Rs.2500-5000 etc. Subsequently, when the petitioner sought for an information under the Right to Information Act 2005, the second respondent had inadvertently sent a communication in R.C.No.245 of 2011, dated 29.06.2011, stating that the petitioner has been selected to the said post, which has given rise for the filing of the present writ petition.
Operative part
Perusal of the revised communication, dated 11.07.2011, of the second respondent shows that the petitioner has been informed of the mistake that had crept in the first communication, dated 29.06.2011. The later communication has also been acknowledged by the writ petitioner, a copy of the revised proceedings in R.C.No.245/2011 dated 11.07.2011 of the ChildWelfare Officer, second respondent and the postal acknowledgment with signature of the petitioner are placed on record. As the claim of the petitioner based on the letter dated 29.06.2011, has been refuted, inasmuch as the petitioner has not been selected to the post of Anganwadi Worker in Azhagamanagari Village, Sivagangai District, which has been filled up in February 2011 itself, there is no legal or statutory right for the writ petitioner to seek for a mandamus. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (Writs)/ TRUE COPY /Sub Assistant RegistrarTo:1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2. The Child Welfare Officer, Sivagangai District. 3. The District Nutrition Officer, District Nutrition Office, Periyar Nagar, Sivagangai District+1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.24797.RRWrit Petition No.7877 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011RP/27.07.2011/2P/5C.22/07/2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Right to Information Act, 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.