Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3370 (MAD)

M. Yoseph Neethi v. District Revenue, Dindigul

2013-09-18

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of appointment of the fourth respondent to the post of Village Assistant . 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :– In pursuant to the notification issued by the third respondent dated 10.11.1992, four persons including the petitioner and the fourth respondent herein applied to the said post of Village Assistant. They were called for an interview. The application submitted by the fourth respondent was rejected on the ground that he was convicted by the Magistrate Court, Palani in connection with the Cr.No. 49/83, wherein he was imposed with a fine of Rs.50/-. Likewise, the other two applicants were also rejected for some other reasons. The third respondent, therefore, considering the petitioner as the fit person to the said post, appointed him as the Village Assistant by an order dated 20.11.1992. Aggrieved against the same, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal challenging the appointment of the petitioner. The second respondent, who is the appellate authority, confirmed the order passed by the original authority viz., the third respondent and consequently dismissed the appeal preferred by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent preferred a revision before the first respondent. By an order dated 20.2.1995, which is impugned in this writ petition, the first respondent set aside the orders passed by the second and third respondents and consequently directed to appoint the 4th respondent to the said post. Challenging the said order of the first respondent, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3.The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the grounds : – (i) that the first respondent failed to consider the character and past conduct of the 4th respondent, who has been convicted in a criminal case wherein he was imposed with a fine of Rs. 50/- and (ii) that the petitioner is the resident of Amarapoondi Village and therefore he knows the village work from his boyhood as his father was also a Village Assistant. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is stated as follows :– The third respondent issued notice inviting applications from eligible persons to the post of Village Assistant in pursuant to the retirement of one Thundayan on 28.9.1992. Four persons including the petitioner and the fourth respondent submitted their applications. After the interview, the third respondent appointed the petitioner through his proceedings dated 20.11.1992. Four persons including the petitioner and the fourth respondent submitted their applications. After the interview, the third respondent appointed the petitioner through his proceedings dated 20.11.1992. The fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent, who in turn dismissed the said appeal. However, the first respondent allowed the Revision filed by the fourth respondent after due enquiry and on verification of the connected records. Consequent to the order of the first respondent dated 20.2.1995, the fourth respondent joined as Village Assistant on 27.2.1995. The Criminal case referred to in respect of the fourth respondent was a petty case. It was neither aimed against Government nor it affected any law and order problem. It was a quarrel that arose between two groups only due to family dispute over a marriage issue. Therefore, that punishment was not taken into account while passing the orders in the Revision petition. The fourth respondent was not disqualified for the reason that he paid a fine amount of Rs.50/- in a petty case. The petitioner was residing in Kanakkanpatty and not in Amarapoondi whereas the fourth respondent was residing in Amarapoondi possessing better knowledge of the area and people of Amarapoondi Village. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the fourth respondent was involved in a grave crime, debarring him from holding the post . 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this court. 6. The petitioner herein challenges the appointment of the fourth respondent to the post of Village Assistant. The said appointment was made by the order of the first respondent dated 20.2.1995, which is impugned in this writ petition. Admittedly, the fourth respondent joined duty on 27.2.1995 itself and is continuously working in the said post for the past 18 years and is due to retire within few months from today. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent was involved in a criminal case and imposed with a fine of Rs.50/-and therefore, he should not have been considered to the said post. It is stated in the counter that the fine amount of Rs. 50/- came to be imposed on the fourth respondent in a petty case. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent was involved in a criminal case and imposed with a fine of Rs.50/-and therefore, he should not have been considered to the said post. It is stated in the counter that the fine amount of Rs. 50/- came to be imposed on the fourth respondent in a petty case. The Revisional authority also found that the relevant records of the criminal case was not made available before him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul by stating that they are not available. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, the revisional authority passed the order and directed appointment of the fourth respondent. As already stated supra, the said order came to be passed by the first respondent as early as 20.2.1995 and the fourth respondent also joined duty on 27.2.1995 and is continuously working for the past 18 years. It is stated by the petitioner's counsel himself that the fourth respondent is due to retire within two months. 7. Considering all these facts and circumstances, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the first respondent, more particularly, with regard to his finding on the involvement of the fourth respondent in a petty case, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition without disturbing the appointment of the fourth respondent and however by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents for considering his case for appointment to the post of Village Assistant. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is now aged 40 years. Therefore, while considering the claim of the petitioner, the authorities shall not reject his claim as age barred one. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.