Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3236 (MAD)

Lakshmi v. District Collector

2014-09-11

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2014
JUDGMENT W.P.(MD)No.1401/2014: 1. The petitioner challenges the appointment of fourth respondent as Mini Anganwadi Organizer. According to the petitioner, she is fully qualified for appointment. However, the fourth respondent, who was not qualified for such appointment, got selected and appointed as Mini Anganwadi Organizer. W.P.(MD)No.2166/2014: 2. The petitioner challenges the appointment of fourth respondent as Anganwadi Organizer. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a resident of the place where the Anganwadi is situated. The petitioner is stated to be a Widow and she has to look after two female minor children, besides her parents. Though the petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Organizer, the fourth respondent, who is living in affluent circumstances, was appointed as Anganwadi Organizer. The appointment is, therefore, under challenge in the Writ Petition. W.P.(MD)No.20423/2013: 3. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Assistant to function at Anganwadi Centre, Rajagopalapuram, Pudukkottai. Even though the petitioner is fully qualified for such appointment, the second respondent appointed the fourth respondent. The appointment order is challenged on the ground that the fourth respondent failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria. 4. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Assistant. The petitioner is stated to be a widow. The district administration appointed the fourth respondent, after negativing the claim made by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is not residing at Adappankara Chathiram. Even then, she was appointed to the post. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to quash the appointment of fourth respondent. W.P.(MD)No.3288/2014: 5. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment to the post of Cook-Assistant. Though the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria, the fourth respondent was appointed by the District Collector. The appointment is challenged on the ground that fourth respondent is a native of a different Village and as such, she failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria with regard to residence. W.P.(MD)No.3380/2014: 6. The appointment of fourth respondent as Anganwadi Assistant is challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is residing in a different Village. It was her further contention that she is a resident of the concerned Village and only in case there are no candidates available in the subject Village, a candidate from another Village can be appointed. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is residing in a different Village. It was her further contention that she is a resident of the concerned Village and only in case there are no candidates available in the subject Village, a candidate from another Village can be appointed. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to set aside the appointment of fourth respondent as Anganwadi Assistant. W.P.(MD)No.1973/2014: 7. The appointment of the third respondent as Anganwadi Helper is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the third respondent is residing at Kayampatti Village, which is 15 kilometres away from the place where the Anganwadi Centre is situated. It was her further contention that she is residing only 200 metres away from the Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to set aside the appointment of the third respondent as Anganwadi Helper. 8. The third respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.1401 of 2014, 20423 and 20453 of 2013 and the second respondent in W.P(MD)Nos.2166, 3288 and 1973 of 2014 have filed counter-affidavits justifying the impugned selection. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners tried their level best to justify the contentions taken by the petitioners to nullify the appointments of the selected candidates. When it was pointed out that the selection in question was made long ago and the selected candidates are all working for the last more than one year, the learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied, in case a direction is issued to the District Collector to consider their case in future. According to the learned counsel, there are several vacancies of Mini Anganwadi Organizer, Anganwadi Organizer, Anganwadi Assistant, Cook-Assistant and Anganwadi Helper in the district of Pudukkottai and as such, a direction should be issued to the District Collector. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader, by placing reliance on the vacancy position issued by the District Collector, confirmed that there are large number of vacancies in the post of Mini Anganwadi Organizer, Anganwadi Organizer, Anganwadi Assistant, Cook-Assistant and Anganwadi Helper in the district of Pudukkottai. 11. The petitioners are all living below the poverty line. Majority of the petitioners are widows. They have to maintain the family which consists of their children, parents and in-laws. 11. The petitioners are all living below the poverty line. Majority of the petitioners are widows. They have to maintain the family which consists of their children, parents and in-laws. The Government have sanctioned large number of posts of Mini Anganwadi Organizer, Anganwadi Organizer, Anganwadi Assistant, Cook-Assistant and Anganwadi Helper, with a view to provide food to the children of the Village and also to give employment to the local residents. These Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2013 and 2014. The petitioners were all living under the hope that they would also be given appointment. The Court has to balance equities in a case of this nature. The selected candidates have been working for the last more than one year. In case their appointments are set aside at this point of time, on account of the defective selection process or failure to consider the valid claim of some of these petitioners, it would ruin their family also. 12. The Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn. [2010(1) Scale 613] while considering the question of judicial review in respect of the award passed by the Labour Court, observed that in case a citizen is denied of his employment, he would not be in a position to enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 13. It is true that there are many people waiting for employment. Several people have registered their names and they are visiting Employment Exchanges every day with a hope that their names would be sponsored in the near future. 14. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, should realize the difficulties of these petitioners and the other poor people of Pudukkottai District. The vacancies should be filled up without any further delay. The petitioners should be given preference in the matter of such appointments, in case all other things are equal. 15. The District Collector, Pudukkottai District should take earnest efforts to fill up the post of Mini Anganwadi Organizer, Anganwadi Organizer, Anganwadi Assistant, Cook-Assistant and Anganwadi Helper in the district of Pudukkottai, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above direction. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. W.P.(MD)No.20453/2013: