Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 773 (MAD)

R. Santhi v. District Collector, Dharmapuri

2013-02-05

K.CHANDRU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner challenges the appointment of the 4th Respondent ‘Anganwadi Worker’ in respect of the centre in Ramarkoodal coming under the Nallampalli Block. The order has been issued by the District Collector, the First Respondent. 2. The Petitioner is also an Applicant for the said port and the post has been reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. As per the records, there were five candidates, who applied for the said post. The Committee consisting of Medical Officer, Block Development Officer, Additional Elementary Educational Officer and Assistant Project Officer considered the claims of all the five persons and found that the Third Respondent has secured 28 marks, whereas the Petitioner has secured only 27 marks. Hence, Appointment Order was issued to the 4th Respondent, who has been working in the said centre with effect from 27.08.2012. 3. The contention raised by the Petitioner as against the appointment of the 4th Respondent was threefold. While appointing the 4th Respondent, Respondents 1 to 3 have not considered G.O.Ms. No.110, Social Welfare Department, dated 14.05.2012. While the Petitioner belongs to the same village, the 4th Respondent belongs to Erabaianahalli Village, which is another Panchayat. While awarding marks, there has been over writing and the Petitioner has obtained the information through the provisions of RTI Act. 4. Though the contention of the Petitioner that there has been overwriting in the marks given to the Petitioner, what is overwritten is only the sum total of marks given to the Petitioner, what is overwritten is only the sum total of marks awarded under various column starting from Column Nos.4 to 9. If the marks awarded in those columns are added, there is no discrepancy in the total marks arrived at by the authorities. Even the argument that the Petitioner belongs to Bandahalli Village whereas the 4th Respondent belongs to some other village does not stand to reason. Even in the Affidavit, the Petitioner has shown the 4th Respondent as W/0 Vadivel, residing at Gettuhalli in Pandahalli Post. All the five candidates have given their residence as half a k.m. from the centre, whereas the Committee found that all of them are residing within one kilometer from the centre, except in the case of one Kalliammal, W/o Selvan, whose residence was 6 km from the centre. 5. All the five candidates have given their residence as half a k.m. from the centre, whereas the Committee found that all of them are residing within one kilometer from the centre, except in the case of one Kalliammal, W/o Selvan, whose residence was 6 km from the centre. 5. On notice from this Court, the Third Respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit denying the allegations made by the Petitioner. It is stated that on the basis of the marks awarded by the Committee, proposal was sent to the District Collector, who has given Appointment Order to the 4th Respondent. There is no illegality in the selection of the 4th Respondent. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms. No. 110 dated 14.05.2012, wherein in respect of residential requirement, it was stated that candidate from same hamlet has to be appointed, failing which, candidates from other hamlet can be considered. In the present case, no materials have been produced to show that the 4th Respondent belongs to some other Panchayat. On the other hand, the Affidavit filed by the Petitioner shows that 4th Respondent belongs to the same Postal Division. The authorities have also found that she lives within one kilometer from the centre. 7. Under the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.