Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4632 (MAD)

S. Bagirathi v. The District Collector & Others

2009-11-02

K.CHANDRU

body2009
Judgment :- The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the third respondent, President of Vennaiyur Village Panchayat, Kattumannarkoil Taluk, Cuddalore District to allow her to work as a Clerk-cum-Computer Operator in the third respondent office and pass such further orders as the court may deem fit. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meeting held on 10.03.2007, she was appointed as a Clerk of the Village Panchayat and the same was approved by the entire panchayat. It is also stated that she has studied +2 and also worked at village panchayat on contract basis in the same village. 3. The one factor, which was pleaded by the petitioner is that the petitioners father Selvaraj, who was working as a Panchayat Assistant became unwell, therefore, he was relieved from service. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed. 4. On notice from this court, the respondent Panchayat denied the appointment of the petitioner and also filed a counter affidavit dated 20.10.2009. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners father worked for 20 years till 2006 as a Panchayat Assistant and his service was also extended by one year. Thereafter, the Pachayat had appointed one Balamurugan as a Part Time Clerk in the panchayat. The petitioners father having grievance over the said appointment since his daughter was not considered, he has set up his daughter to file the present writ petition and the records of the Panchayat were manipulated as if the petitioner was appointed as a clerk. There was no agenda placed before the Panchayat and no resolution was passed on the appointment of the petitioner. In support of their contentions, the third respondent produced the original book of Minutes justifying the stand of the Panchayat. 5. After perusing the records, the learned counsel for the petitioner has now filed supporting affidavit by one K.Rathnavathy, who was also councillor of the Panchayat. In the affidavit, it is stated that though the resolution dated 10.03.2007 was not cancelled, she has not signed the resolution as it was not brought to her notice. 6. The counsel for the third respondent contended that the said K.Rathnavathy was a close relative of the petitioner and no credentials can be drawn to the said affidavit. 7. A photostat copy of the agenda produced by the petitioner is materially differs from the original minutes book. 8. 6. The counsel for the third respondent contended that the said K.Rathnavathy was a close relative of the petitioner and no credentials can be drawn to the said affidavit. 7. A photostat copy of the agenda produced by the petitioner is materially differs from the original minutes book. 8. In the light of the contradictory stand taken by both sides, there was a clear assertion by the third respondent that the petitioner was not appointed in the Panchayat, the only option open to this court is that to direct the first respondent District Collector, who is also a Inspector of the Panchayat to make an enquiry with regard to the appointment of the petitioner. It is laid down under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 that the Inspector of Panchayat has been given power to suspend or cancel any resolution passed and also to prohibit the doing of any act of the Panchayat, which is not in accordance with the Act. 9. In the light of the statutory provision provided under the Act, the first respondent is directed to enquire with regard to the grievance of the petitioner and also peruse original records of the Panchayat and thereafter, if the first respondent is satisfied that the petitioner has been properly appointed by the Panchayat, then he can allow the petitioner to continue. If the Inspector is not satisfied with the stand of the petitioner and if he was convinced that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with law, he can pass appropriate orders on the same. Before passing the order as enjoined under Section 202(2), he may grant opportunity to such of the parties as it deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 10. The first respondent is hereby directed to take a decision after due notice to the parties and communicate the result to the parties. 11. The agenda and minutes book produced by the learned counsel for the third respondent is handed over to the counsel with a direction that the same shall be produced before the District Collector as and when required. 12. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.