Judgment :- 2(i).It is now not uncommon that interference is made in the matter of appointment even to the lowest posts, such as, Watchman, Gardener, Office Assistant, etc. The Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14108 of 2013 found that in School Education Department, thousands of appointments in the cadre of Watchman and Sweepers were sought to be filled up solely based on political consideration. Hence, this Court passed various interim orders and also appointed Mr.C.V.Shankar, I.A.S., Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, to enquire into the alleged irregularities in the said appointments and submit a report. But the Court ultimately found that the report of the said Officer was not acceptable. Hence, this Court, in the final order passed on 24.09.2014 in W.P.(MD)No.14108 of 2013, directed Mr.Xavier Dhanraj, Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (Southern Region), Tamil Nadu, to hold vigilance enquiry into the above episode and submit a detailed Vigilance Enquiry Report to the Government in respect of the above episode and thereafter it shall be for the Government to take appropriate action against the officials against whom there are prima facie materials that they have committed misconduct. 2(ii).Hence, I am of the view that it is high time to make recruitment procedure fair and transparent, so that there would be no interference from any quarters. With this view, I have made certain suggestions in the later portion of this judgment and I am of the fond hope that the Government would take suitable action based on the same making the recruitment procedure to public employment a fair one. Filling up the posts of Village Assistant in Tittagudi Taluk (W.P.No.9600/2013): 3. It is shocking that even for appointment to the lowest post, namely, Village Assistant, the original records, that are produced, reveal that there has been a lot of interference in the selection and appointment. The records reveal the shocking fact about the recommendations made by the influential political personalities including the then Hon'ble Minister for Backward Classes Department. 4(i). Prior to 1980, the village administration was under the control of part-time village Munsifs, part-time village karnams and part-time employees in various names, such as Vetti or Nirgandi or Thalayari. They were on consolidated monthly pay. These posts were held on hereditary basis. 4(ii). 4(i). Prior to 1980, the village administration was under the control of part-time village Munsifs, part-time village karnams and part-time employees in various names, such as Vetti or Nirgandi or Thalayari. They were on consolidated monthly pay. These posts were held on hereditary basis. 4(ii). In 1980, the Tamil Nadu Government took a policy decision to abolish the part-time posts of Village Munsif and Karnam. The Government created a new post called Village Administrative Officer to look after the village administration. 4(iii). After abolition of the part-time posts in 1980, the villages are administered by the Village Administrative Officers at the lowest level. The immediate superior to the Village Administrative Officer is the Revenue Inspector, who is the head of the Firka. About 4 or 5 villages constitute a Firka. The Village Administrative Officers and the Revenue Inspectors are all under the control of the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk. 4(iv). However, the part-time employees, namely, Vettis or Nirgandis or Thalayaris were continued as part-time employees. Those part-time employees were called as Village Assistants. They made demand to the Government to bring them to regular establishment by granting time scale of pay and other allowances. 4(v). The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.625, Revenue Department, dated 06.07.1995 brining the part-time Village Assistants, namely, Vettis/Nirgandis/Thalayaris into regular establishment by granting them time scale of pay with all allowances with effect from 01.06.1995. While bringing the said Village Assistants into regular establishment, ban was imposed for filling the vacancies that would arise, due to death or otherwise of the Village Assistants. It was estimated that there were 28,000 Village Assistants. The said G.O. states that service rules would be framed by the Government, since the Village Assistants were made regular employees. 5(i). While so, as stated in G.O.Ms.No.625, the Tamil Nadu Government made the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Service under Article 309 of the Constitution in G.O.Ms.No.521, Revenue Department, dated 17.06.1998. It is known as the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Rules”). 5(ii). Rule 2 of the Special Rules states that appointment to the post of Village Assistants shall be made by direct recruitment through the employment exchange concerned. 5(iii). Rule 3 of the Special Rules states that the Appointing Authority for the post of Village Assistant shall be the Taluk Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the village concerned. 5(iv). 5(ii). Rule 2 of the Special Rules states that appointment to the post of Village Assistants shall be made by direct recruitment through the employment exchange concerned. 5(iii). Rule 3 of the Special Rules states that the Appointing Authority for the post of Village Assistant shall be the Taluk Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the village concerned. 5(iv). Rule 4 of the Special Rules states that the rule of reservation, as provided in Rule 22 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, shall apply for appointment to the post of Village Assistant by direct recruitment, treating each Taluk as a separate unit. 5(v). Rule 5 of the Special Rules prescribes minimum age and maximum age for the post. 5(vi).Rule 6 of the Special Rules provides for educational qualification. The educational qualification prescribed for the post is 5th Standard. 5(vii). Rule 7 of the Special Rules prescribes other qualification for the post. The most important part of the Special Rule 7 is Rule 7(c). Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules contemplates that the person appointed to the post of Village Assistant shall belong to the village to which he is appointed or adjoining village, if no suitable candidate is available from that village. The other qualification is that he should be able to ride a bi-cycle. 5(viii). Rule 10 of the Special Rules is relating to residence of the Village Assistant. This rule makes it compulsory that every person appointed to the post of Village Assistant shall reside in the village to which he is appointed. 5(ix). Rule 11 of the Special Rules permits transfer within Taluk by the Appointing Authority, within Revenue Division by the Revenue Divisional Officer, within District by the District Collector and even to outside the District by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. 5(x). Rule 13 of the Special Rules states the age of retirement is 60 years. 6(i). While so, the Tamil Nadu Government issued G.O.Ms.No.787, Revenue Department, dated 06.12.2006 stating that as on that date there were 3674 revenue villages without Village Assistants causing much hardship to the revenue administration. It is stated therein that due to the ban on filling up of vacancies imposed in G.O.Ms.No.625, dated 06.07.1995, 3674 Village Assistant posts could not be filled up. It is stated therein that due to the ban on filling up of vacancies imposed in G.O.Ms.No.625, dated 06.07.1995, 3674 Village Assistant posts could not be filled up. The Government, in G.O.Ms.No.787, decided to relax the condition relating to the ban imposed in G.O.Ms.No.625 by permitting to fill up 3674 vacancies of Village Assistants. Para 4(d) of this G.O.Ms.No.787 has stated that the Tahsildar continues to be the Appointing Authority and however, as the recruitment is in large numbers, the final list of selected candidates shall be released only with the concurrence of the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. 6(ii). Even at this juncture, I am of the view that the Government could not impose such a restriction on the Appointing Authority, without amending the Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, that concurrence from the Revenue Divisional Officer is necessary before releasing the list of selected candidates. 6(iii). Based on the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.787, dated 06.12.2006, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, issued a letter in Lr.No.RA.2(2)/79191/06, dated 11.12.2006, to all the District Collectors directing them to issue necessary instructions to their subordinate officers for taking immediate steps to fill up the vacancies in terms of G.O.Ms.No.787, dated 06.12.2006. 7(i). Based on the aforesaid letter dated 11.12.2006, the District Collector, Cuddalore, issued a letter in Ne.Mu.Ka.A6/82562/06, dated 15.12.2006 to the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, to fill up the vacancies of 25 Village Assistants in the Tittagudi Taluk through the district employment exchange. Along with the letter dated 15.12.2006, he enclosed the aforesaid letter dated 11.12.2006 of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, and the relevant Government Orders in this regard. 25 villages, to which the recruitment shall be made were also indicated therein. 7(ii). A further direction was issued to the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, that before issuing the appointment orders, the selection list shall be approved by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer. The Tahsildar, Tittagudi, was further directed to inform the Collectorate about the action taken based on the instructions. 8(i). The Tahsildar, Tittagudi addressed a letter in Na.Ka.A1/9547/06, dated 29.12.2006, based on the aforesaid letter dated 15.12.2006, to the District Employment Officer, Cuddalore District, to send a list of eligible persons to fill up the post of Village Assistant in the 25 villages mentioned therein. 8(ii). 8(i). The Tahsildar, Tittagudi addressed a letter in Na.Ka.A1/9547/06, dated 29.12.2006, based on the aforesaid letter dated 15.12.2006, to the District Employment Officer, Cuddalore District, to send a list of eligible persons to fill up the post of Village Assistant in the 25 villages mentioned therein. 8(ii). The District Employment Officer returned the said request in their letter dated 11.01.2007 directing the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, to resubmit the request in the format of the application that was enclosed. The District Employment Officer also instructed the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, to fill the vacancies by appointing retrenched persons from the Census Department, as per the Government Orders. In case, there is no list of eligible persons from Census Department available in Cuddalore District, the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, shall get a non-availability certificate from the District Collector so as to enable them to send the list of eligible persons from employment exchange for appointment to the post of Village Assistant. 9(i). The District Collector wrote a letter in Ke.Mu.Ka.A6/82562/06, dated 12.01.2007 to the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, to inform the steps taken for filling up the post of Village Assistant before 31.01.2007. A direction was also issued to take immediate action to fill up the vacancies without any delay. 9(ii). While so, the office of the District Collector issued a non-availability certificate in Oo.Moo.(A4)5616/07, dated 31.01.2007 stating that there is no retrenched person available in the Census Department for appointment to the post of Village Assistant. 10(i). After getting the non-availability certificate, the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, addressed a letter dated 12.02.2007 to the District Employment Officer, Cuddalore District, to sponsor the names to fill up the post of Village Assistants in the Tittagudi Taluk. 10(ii). The Tahsildar, Tittagudi, wrote a letter in A3/9547/06, dated 16.03.2007 to the District Collector stating that the District Employment Officer informed him that they would furnish the list of eligible candidates on 20.03.2007 and immediately on receipt of the list, he would conduct the interview and select the candidates and would submit a report accordingly. 11(i). The District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, sent a letter in D.O.Ref.A6/82562/2006, dated 15.03.2007 to the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, to take immediate steps for the recruitment of Village Assistants and to send a final report with the list of selected candidates before 20.03.2007 without fail. The DRO also stated therein that any failure in this work would be viewed seriously. 11(ii). 11(i). The District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, sent a letter in D.O.Ref.A6/82562/2006, dated 15.03.2007 to the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, to take immediate steps for the recruitment of Village Assistants and to send a final report with the list of selected candidates before 20.03.2007 without fail. The DRO also stated therein that any failure in this work would be viewed seriously. 11(ii). The Tahsildar sent a reply dated 20.03.2007 to the District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District, that he contacted the District Employment Officer directly as well as over phone to send a list of eligible persons for recruitment to the post of Village Assistants. But the District Employment officer stated that they would send the list on 27.03.2007. 11(iii).It seems that the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, received the list on 30.03.2007. 11(iv).As soon as the list was received from the Employment Exchaange, the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, sent the interview cards dated 12.04.2007 to all the 320 candid ates, whose names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Cuddalore, directing them to appear for the written examination at 10.00 a.m. on 27.04.2007 at the Court Hall in the office of the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, and also for interview with the original documents. 11(v). The candidates were directed to bring the original certificates mentioned therein. It is relevant to extract the following passage from the interview call letter dated 12.04.2007 sent by the Tahsildar to the candidates : “TAMIL” 11(vi). As soon as the list was received from the Employment Exchange, the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, also issued the proceedings in Na.Ka.A3/9547/2006, dated 20.04.2007 constituting seven committees to scrutinize the certificates of the candidates numbering 320, whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and each Committee consisted of two officers and each committee was directed to scrutinize the certificates of 50 candidates and the last committee was directed to scrutinize the certificates of the remaining 20 candidates. 11(vii). The said proceedings dated 20.04.2007 states that there would be a written test for candidates from 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. for the 320 candidates and thereafter, interview would be conducted for Sl.Nos.1-150 from 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. and for the rest of the candidates from Sl.Nos.151–320 from 3.00 pm. 11(vii). The said proceedings dated 20.04.2007 states that there would be a written test for candidates from 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. for the 320 candidates and thereafter, interview would be conducted for Sl.Nos.1-150 from 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. and for the rest of the candidates from Sl.Nos.151–320 from 3.00 pm. to 6.00 p.m. It is relevant to extract the proceedings dated 20.04.2007 of the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, regarding the constitution of the committees for scrutinizing all the applications and documents and also the Schedule of written examination and the interview as hereunder: “TAMIL” 11(viii). However, the records relating to the conduct of the written examination, that is, neither question paper nor the answer scripts, are produced. Though voluminous original records are produced, the documents relating to written examination are not available in the records. The records also do not disclose about the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test and the interview. 11(ix). The Tahsildar, Tittagudi, prepared selection list in the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/9547/2006, dated 01.05.2007 selecting 23 persons and keeping vacant 2 posts against roster points 18 and 23 on the ground that no suitable candidates were available and sent the same for approval by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam. The selection list dated 01.05.2007 of the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, does not state as to how the list was prepared, as there is no rank list of the candidates based on the marks obtained by them in the tests conducted on 27.04.2007. 11(x). The Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam, issued the proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/8067/2007, dated 02.05.2007 approving the selected list of 23 persons. The said order dated 02.05.2007 of the Revenue Divisional Officer approving the selection of 23 persons for appointment to the post of Village Assistants is reproduced as hereunder : 11(xi). Based on the aforesaid approval by the Revenue Divisional Officer, as required in G.O.Ms.No.787, the individual appointment orders dated 03.05.2007 were prepared by the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, and the typed copies of individual appointment orders dated 03.05.2007 signed by the Tahsildar are available in the original records. Before the appointment orders were sent to the individual persons, it is stated that the Tahsildar received a telephonic message on 03.05.2007 from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam, not to issue appointment orders. 11(xii). Hence, the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, sent a letter in Na.Ka.No.A3/9547/06, dated 10.05.2007 to the District Collector, Cuddalore, to permit him to issue appointment orders. Before the appointment orders were sent to the individual persons, it is stated that the Tahsildar received a telephonic message on 03.05.2007 from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam, not to issue appointment orders. 11(xii). Hence, the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, sent a letter in Na.Ka.No.A3/9547/06, dated 10.05.2007 to the District Collector, Cuddalore, to permit him to issue appointment orders. The Tahsildar marked a copy of the letter dated 10.05.2007 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam. 11(xiii). At this juncture, I like to record that the original file contains the tabular column containing the list of candidates and the name of the influential political personalities, who recommended the candidates for the post of Village Assistant. The original files also contain about the recommendation made by the then Hon'ble Minister for Backward Classes Department recommending 28 persons. Thus, the Tahsildar received various recommendations from different quarters in the matter of appointment to the post of Village Assistants. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the number of pages of the original file is not in order, causing suspicion on the selection process. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that some of the candidates, who were recommended by the VIPs were selected. 12(i).Volume I(2) of the file in A3/9547/2006 reveals that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam, received a letter in RA(2)(2)79191/06, dated 04.05.2007 of the Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai. The said letter dated 04.05.2007 of the Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, is as follows : “In pursuant to the instruction received from Government, I request you to stop further recruitment of Village Assistant forthwith until further order. I also request you to issue necessary instructions to the authorities concerned in the (sic) regard and to report compliance in fax.” Thus, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam, telephonically informed the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, not to issue appointment orders. 12(ii). The Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, issued another letter in RA(2)(2) 79191/2006, dated 24.05.2007 to all the District Collectors enclosing the copy of the letter No.20349/Ser.8-1/2007-2, dated 23.05.2007 of the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Chennai, to the Special Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, and also G.O.Ms.No.86, Labour and Employment Department, dated 12.05.2007. 12(ii). The Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, issued another letter in RA(2)(2) 79191/2006, dated 24.05.2007 to all the District Collectors enclosing the copy of the letter No.20349/Ser.8-1/2007-2, dated 23.05.2007 of the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Chennai, to the Special Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, and also G.O.Ms.No.86, Labour and Employment Department, dated 12.05.2007. In the letter dated 24.05.2007, the Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, instructed the District Collectors to follow the instructions given by the Government in the aforesaid Letter dated 23.05.2007 and the G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 12.05.2007. 12(iii). At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the reference No.6 of the letter dated 24.05.2007 of the Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai. The reference No.6 is “phone message received from the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Chennai-600 009, dated 04.05.2007”. Thereafter, reference No.7 is “this office letter RA.II(2) 79191/06, dated 04.05.2007”. Thus, it could be inferred that the instructions received from the Government referred to in the letter dated 04.05.2007 of the Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration is the phone message given by the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department. 12(iv). G.O.Ms.No.86 of the Labour and Employment Department, dated 12.05.2007 directs that G.O.Ms.No.65, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.03.2007 fixing the ratio of 1:1 shall be strictly followed. That is, while addressing the letter to the employment exchange to sponsor the name, the employment exchange shall be requested to send the list at the ratio of 1:1, which means, for one vacancy in a particular post, there shall be one candidate sponsored by the employment exchange. In the letter dated 23.05.2007 of the Government, it was directed that the aforesaid ratio shall be followed in the appointment of Village Assistants. 12(v). Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.429, Revenue Department, dated 08.08.2007 superseding G.O.Ms.No.86, Labour and Employment Department, dated 12.05.2007, as far as the appointment to 3674 vacancies of Village Assistants are concerned and instructing the concerned officials to make requisition to the employment exchange to sponsor candidates in the ratio of 1:5. 12(vi).The Tahsildar, Tittagudi, wrote so many letters to the District Collector, Cuddalore District, to permit him to issue appointment orders based on the selection already made, since making fresh selection would cause disturbance in the area. But the Tahsildar was instructed to carry out the instructions of the Government. 13. 12(vi).The Tahsildar, Tittagudi, wrote so many letters to the District Collector, Cuddalore District, to permit him to issue appointment orders based on the selection already made, since making fresh selection would cause disturbance in the area. But the Tahsildar was instructed to carry out the instructions of the Government. 13. In my view, as already stated, G.O.Ms.No.787, Revenue Department, dated 06.12.2006 is bad insofar as it restricts the power of the Appointing Authority by compelling him to get concurrence from the Revenue Divisional Officer for the selection of the Village Assistants, since the same is contrary to the Special Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Further, the aforesaid instruction from the Government and the telephonic messages directing the authorities to have a fresh selection is not an healthy trend and it is doubtful as to whether there is any hidden agenda. 14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that G.O.Ms.No.65, Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.03.2007 was held to be bad by a Division Bench of this Court in R.Amirthaveni V. the District Employment Exchange Officer, District Employment Exchange Office, Railway Station Road, Dharmapuri, and Others reported in (2008) 5 MLJ 1252 . The following passage in the judgment is extracted in this regard : “So far as G.O.Ms.No.65, Labour and Employment (N.2) Department, dated 30.3.2007 is concerned, as consideration of one name against one vacancy will amount to “no selection” in the eye of law, the said G.O. being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, was rightly recalled by the State. No person can claim appointment on the basis of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.65, even if the names were called for prior to 25.2.2008, but selection has not yet been made.” 15. Therefore, a large number of vacancies remained unfilled after 01.06.1995 due to the ban imposed in G.O.Ms.No.625, and even after it was lifted and permission was granted to fill up those vacancies in the year 2006 in G.O.Ms.No.787, the vacancies remained unfilled for about a decade. The file reveals that in Tittagudi Taluk alone, the vacancy rose from 25 to 50. 16. The file reveals that in Tittagudi Taluk alone, the vacancy rose from 25 to 50. 16. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, addressed a letter in Na.Ka.No.A3/1011/09, dated 31.07.2009 to the District Employment Officer, Cuddalore, seeking to send a fresh list at the ratio of 1:5 to fill up the 25 vacancies in the post of Village Assistant, as per G.O.Ms.No.429. 17. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.155, Revenue Department, dated 26.03.2010, permitting to fill up 2174 vacancies of Village Assistants in the State, that arose between the period 06.12.2006 and 31.07.2009. While G.O.Ms.No.787 states that there were 3674 vacancies in the post of Village Assistants as on 06.12.2006, G.O.Ms.No.155 states that there arose vacancies of 2174 in the post of Village Assistants for the period from 06.12.2006 to 31.07.2009. In para 3(ii) of the said G.O.Ms.No.155, it is categorically made clear that the Appointing Authority is the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar can appoint Village Assistant, by strictly following the Rules. That is, the Tahsildar could make appointment in accordance with the Special Rules and he need not get approval from the RDO for the selection for filling up those 2174 vacancies of Village Assistants and for future vacancies. 18(i). In March 2010, in response to the request made by the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, to send fresh list at the ratio of 1:5, the District Employment Exchange, Cuddalore, sponsored a fresh list of 118 persons. Based on the same, a letter dated 25.08.2010 was sent by the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, to individual candidates to appear for the interview on 09.09.2010. 18(ii). As stated above, while 118 persons were sent with the interview call letters, only 69 persons responded. After interview, 8 persons alone were selected and 61 persons were not selected on one ground or the other. 18(iii). At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that when 69 persons participated in the interview, here again, there is no rank list prepared. It is not known as to how 8 persons were selected and appointed. 18(iv). Be it as it may, 9 unsuccessful candidates, who were not selected, on the ground that they were over-qualified, that is, when they registered their names in the employment exchange they failed S.S.L.C (10th standard) and thereafter, when the selection took place, they passed 10th standard and some of them passed 12th standard, filed W.P.Nos.23539 to 23541 and 26336 to 26341 of 2010. 18(v).The respondents therein took a stand that the persons, who were in possession of 5th standard and above and studied upto 10th standard, were considered and if a candidate passed 10th standard, he was found not eligible for the post of Village Assistant. Considering the Special Rules and more particularly, Rule 6 of the Special Rules relating to educational qualification, I allowed those writ petitions in W.P.Nos.23539 to 23541 and 26336 to 26341 of 2010 on 08.09.2011 and held that the Special Rules prescribe only minimum qualification and no maximum qualification was fixed. Based on the same, those 9 persons were given appointment. 18(vi).One another person by name, Periyannan also approached this Court by filing W.P.No.30227 of 2011, who was also not selected and who was one among those 69 persons participated in the interview on 09.09.2010. The respondents took a plea that he crossed the age of 40 years and that he studied upto 10th standard, while the prescribed qualification was 5th standard. Both the grounds were rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 06.07.2012 in W.P.No.30227 of 2011 and the writ petition was allowed holding that possessing qualification of 10th standard is not a bar and the petitioner was within 40 years as on the crucial date. He was also given appointment. 19. In those circumstances, W.P.No.9600 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner claiming appointment to the post of Village Assistant. He was one among the 69 persons, who participated in the interview on 09.09.2010. He claimed that he is a physically challenged person. He is entitled to 3 % reservation as per Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 20(i). A counter-affidavit dated 22.04.2013 was filed by the respondents initially. It is stated therein that the writ petitioner was selected, but there is no vacancy in his native village. It was stated in more than one place that the petitioner was selected. It was stated in one place that due to the ban imposed by the Government for filling up the post of Village Assistant due to policy decision, he was not appointed. At another place, it was stated that there is no vacancy in his village Kothattai and hence, he was not selected. 20(ii). A revised counter-affidavit was filed in September 2014 without date. At another place, it was stated that there is no vacancy in his village Kothattai and hence, he was not selected. 20(ii). A revised counter-affidavit was filed in September 2014 without date. It is stated therein that the petitioner belongs to MBC and 5 posts were earmarked for MBC and since 5 persons were selected under MBC quota, the petitioner was not selected. 20(iii). The averments in the counter-affidavit and the averments in the revised counter-affidavit run counter to each other. 20(iv). It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was selected, but due to the ban, he was not appointed and at another place, it was stated that there was no vacancy in his village Kothattai, to which, he belongs to, whereas, in the revised counter-affidavit, it is stated that among 25 vacancies, 5 vacancies were earmarked for MBC and 5 persons were already selected under MBC quota and hence, he was not selected. 20(v). In the revised counter-affidavit, it is stated that the persons, who approached this Court and obtained order dated 08.09.2011 in W.P.Nos.23539 to 23541 and 26336 to 26341 of 2010 and the person, who filed W.P.No.30227 of 2011 and obtained the order dated 06.07.2012, were appointed in the vacancies. 20(vi). It is not stated in the revised counter-affidavit that those persons were appointed against any reserved vacancies. When originally 8 persons were selected, three persons, who are belonging to MBC, were selected. Therefore, it is not known on what basis it is stated that 5 persons were selected under MBC category. 20(vii). It is not the case of the respondents in the revised counter-affidavit that the persons, who were appointed pursuant to the orders of this Court, were appointed against MBC category. 21. Even otherwise, I am of the view that there is no answer from the respondent Department as to why they did not provide reservation for physically challenged person as per Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and the petitioner is entitled to appointment under the said Act. It is stated that the petitioner rode bi-cycle, even though he is a physically challenged person, as per the records. 22(i). It is stated that the petitioner rode bi-cycle, even though he is a physically challenged person, as per the records. 22(i). In fact, when 8 persons were selected, among 69 persons, the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, prepared a tabular column dated 09.09.2010, containing the list of 118 persons, to whom the interview cards were sent and minutes were recorded against those persons in that tabular column. The heading of the tabular column is as follows : “TAMIL” The name of the petitioner is found at Sl.No.107 of the tabular column. The reason given in the last column, namely, “TAMIL” [” therein is that “,d “TAMIL” 22(ii). As per the said list dated 09.09.2010, only 8 persons were selected and among them, 3 persons, namely, Sl.No.96-D.Sivakumar, Sl.No.100-P.Kolanji and Sl.No.102-K.Chinnadurai, who are belonging to MBC, were selected. But as per the revised counter-affidavit, 5 persons, who are coming within MBC quota, were already selected. The above said tabular column makes it clear that the reason given in the revised counter-affidavit has no basis and it is not tallying with the tabular column about the non-selection of the petitioner on 09.09.2010 by the Tahsildar, the appointing authority. 22(iii). As stated above, the Government issued orders permitting the Tahsildars to make appointment of Village Assistants in their unit, whenever vacancy arises. That is, the Tahsildar could make appointment in accordance with the Special Rules. He need not get approval from the RDO for the selection. A perusal of the original file discloses that the appointment of these eight persons out of 69 persons by the Tahsildar was not placed before the RDO for approval, in view of the said Government order issued in the meantime permitting the Tahsildar to make appointment to the post of Village Assistant in his unit. 22(iv). Further, the ground taken by the respondents that there is no vacancy in the village Kothattai, to which the petitioner Rajamani belongs to, has no basis. The Village Assistant one M.Ramalingam served in the village Kothattai retired from service on 31.05.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. The original letter dated 30.05.1998 of the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, was produced before me to establish about the retirement of M.Ramanlingam on 31.05.1998 on reaching the 60 age of years. The entire original letter is extracted hereunder : “TAMIL” 22(v). The Village Assistant one M.Ramalingam served in the village Kothattai retired from service on 31.05.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. The original letter dated 30.05.1998 of the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, was produced before me to establish about the retirement of M.Ramanlingam on 31.05.1998 on reaching the 60 age of years. The entire original letter is extracted hereunder : “TAMIL” 22(v). The letter dated 15.07.2009 of the Tahsildar, Tittagudi, states that there are vacancies in 50 villages and names of those villages are given by the Tahsildar. Kothattai is at Sl.No.31 and the Village number of Kothattai is 103 as per the letter. This letter relating to the vacancies of 50 post of Village Assistants with particular reference to the villages in Tittagudi Taluk is found at page No.77 of Volume II in the file A3/1011/09. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner in W.P.No.9600 of 2013 is entitled to succeed. 22(vi). At this juncture, it is relevant to note that while 69 candidates participated in the interview, 61 persons were rejected for one reason or the other. It is not known as to how 61 persons were not found suitable to the post of Village Assistant. It is relevant to note that the Village Assistant post is totally an unskilled post. But still, the Appointing Authority found that out of 69 persons, only 8 were suitable for the post. That is why, it requires a fair and transparent selection process, such as prescription of 10th Standard as the qualification for the recruitment to the posts, and the selection solely based on the marks obtained in the 10th standard public examination, wherein, the scope for manipulation would not arise. 22(vii). Further, the aforesaid narration of facts makes it clear that there are a lot of interference in the selection process and thus, it is necessary to have a fair and transparent selection process. 23. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, W.P.No.9600 of 2013 is allowed and a direction is issued to the third respondent in W.P.No.9600 of 2013 to give appointment to the petitioner as Village Assistant in Kothattai village or in any one of the adjacent villages in Tittagudi Taluk, Cuddalore District, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. W.P.No.31317 of 2012: 24. W.P.No.31317 of 2012 lies in a narrow compass. W.P.No.31317 of 2012: 24. W.P.No.31317 of 2012 lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner herein belongs to Scheduled Caste. He studied upto 10th standard. The Government acquired the lands belonging to the family of the petitioner for Vaniyaru Canal Project in the year 1984. 25. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 20.12.1976, giving priority to the persons, who are land-losers to the Government projects. 26. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued with a preferential quota (priority category under Family Member of Land Acquired by Government) by the Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Dharmapuri, in the Employment Office Identity Card and his seniority date, as per the priority category in the employment exchange identity card is 11.07.1994. 27. As stated above, it is claimed that the petitioner comes under the priority category, as the Government acquired land from his family. The petitioner belongs to Adhikarapatti village, which comes under Pappireddipatti Taluk in Dharmapuri District. There are 27 vacancies in the post of Village Assistants in the said Taluk and one among the vacancies was at Adhikarapatti village. 28(i). The Tahsildar, Pappireddipatti, the second respondent herein, called for a list of eligible persons from the District Employment Exchange to fill up the post of Village Assistants. 28(ii). The Employment Exchange sponsored the name of the petitioner also along with others. Pursuant to the same, the letter dated 26.07.2012 was issued by the first respondent to the candidates including the petitioner to appear for interview on 03.08.2012 at 10.00 a.m. at the office of the first respondent along with original certificates relating to his educational qualification. Accordingly, he appeared for the interview. But he was not selected. 28(iii). The second respondent issued the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4981/2012/B1, dated 31.08.2012 selecting 25 persons. The names of those 25 persons were given in the said proceedings. Then it is stated in that proceedings dated 31.08.2012 that two persons did not join the post. 28(iv). It is found that one Thiru.Selvam was appointed as Village Assistant in Adhikarapatti and his Sl.No. is 9 in the proceedings dated 31.08.2012. As per the said proceedings, he joined on 27.08.2012 as Village Assistant, pursuant to the selection. It is also stated in the said proceedings that Thiru.Selvam, belongs to Parayapattiputhur in Pappireddipatti Taluk. That is, Selvam does not belong to Adhikarappatti village. It is admitted that the distance between Adhikarapatti and Parayapattiputhur is about 15-18 kms. 28(v). As per the said proceedings, he joined on 27.08.2012 as Village Assistant, pursuant to the selection. It is also stated in the said proceedings that Thiru.Selvam, belongs to Parayapattiputhur in Pappireddipatti Taluk. That is, Selvam does not belong to Adhikarappatti village. It is admitted that the distance between Adhikarapatti and Parayapattiputhur is about 15-18 kms. 28(v). Not only in the case of Selvam, one Mariappan was selected for the post of Village Assistant for Parayapatti, while he belongs to Pattukonampatti. His Sl.No. is 15 in the proceedings dated 31.08.2012. The distance between Parayapatti and Pattukonampatti is stated to be about 25 kms. 28(vi). Similar is the case in respect of other appointments also. 28(vii). When the petitioner made an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer in March 2013 against his non-selection, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent a letter in Na.Ka.No.1209/2013(A1), dated 12.04.2013 to the first respondent, the District Collector, disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner. The relevant passage from the said letter dated 12.04.2013 is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 28(viii). The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.27472 of 2013 seeking to quash the aforesaid letter dated 12.04.2013 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 therein to appoint him as Village Servant in Adhikarampatti Village, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri District. This Court allowed the writ petition on 04.10.2013. It is relevant to extract paragraph 6 of the order dated 04.10.2013 in W.P.No.27472 of 2013: “6. Any person, who is aggrieved by the appointment of Village Servant by the Tahsildar can appeal to the second respondent / Revenue Divisional Officer under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980 and the Revenue Divisional Officer is entitled to decide about the correctness of the appointment order under Rule 9. When Rule 9 speaks about the correctness of the appointment order to be decided by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer cannot give a recommendation letter to the first respondent, which is not consonance with Rule 9. Therefore, the impugned order suffers and the same is set-aside and the appeal filed by the petitioner is remanded to the second respondent, who shall issue notice to all the concerned persons and hear them and pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 28(ix). Therefore, the impugned order suffers and the same is set-aside and the appeal filed by the petitioner is remanded to the second respondent, who shall issue notice to all the concerned persons and hear them and pass appropriate orders, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 28(ix). The petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.11.2013 to the first respondent along with the copy of the order of this Court dated 04.10.2013 in W.P.No.27472 of 2013 and the same was forwarded to the second respondent therein, the RDO, by the first respondent in the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5278/2013/A5, dated 02.12.2013 for appropriate action. 28(x). Though the second respondent Tahsildar herein claimed in the additional counter-affidavit that, thereafter, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, in the proceedings in Pro.No.1209/2013(A1), dated 25.02.2014, after holding necessary enquiry, neither the copy of the said proceedings is produced nor the reasons assigned in the said proceedings was extracted in the additional counter-affidavit. Furthermore, the second respondent herein does not whisper about the earlier letter of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, dated 12.04.2013, the relevant portion of which was extracted above, and the order of this Court dated 04.10.2013 in the additional counter-affidavit. Hence, the order of rejection of the appeal claimed to be passed by the RDO, Harur, dated 25.02.2014 shall be ignored. 28(xi). At this juncture, it is relevant to note that it is admitted in the counter-affidavit and the additional counter-affidavit that the petitioner was not considered under the priority category on the ground that he did not produce the proof for the same. When the Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Dharmapuri, issued identity card to the petitioner including him under priority category, the second respondent is not right in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he did not produce the proof for claiming priority quota. That is why, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Harur, also stated in the letter dated 12.04.2013 that the petitioner is entitled to claim priority quota. 28(xii). Furthermore, Thiru.Selvam, who was appointed at Adikarapatti, was relived on 30.11.2012, as per the records produced, due to his appointment as Watchman in the Government Higher Secondary School. When the vacancy arose in Adhikarapatti, the petitioner should have been appointed in that vacancy in view of Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules. 28(xii). Furthermore, Thiru.Selvam, who was appointed at Adikarapatti, was relived on 30.11.2012, as per the records produced, due to his appointment as Watchman in the Government Higher Secondary School. When the vacancy arose in Adhikarapatti, the petitioner should have been appointed in that vacancy in view of Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules. So long as Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules is intact, the petitioner shall have preference over others. Even, when the vacancy arose, as stated above, the petitioner was not appointed, though he belongs to Adhikarapatti village and also belongs to priority category. On the other hand, one Vasuki, who belongs to Manjuvadi, was appointed as Village Assistant in Narayanapuram. The distance between the Manjuvadi and Narayanapuram is about 5 kms. But for the reasons best known to the authorities, she was transferred and posted at Adikarapatti on 01.06.2013 in the vacancy that was caused due to the relieving of Thiru.Selvam from Adikarapatti, as stated above. It is relevant to take note of the fact that the distance between Adikarapatti and Manjuvadi, to which she belongs to, is about 30 kms. Thus, the aforesaid fact makes it clear that Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules is observed more in breach. It is relevant to extract Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules for better appreciation : “7. Other Qualifications a. No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post unless - i) he is able to ride a bicycle ; ii) he satisfies the appointing authority iii) produces a certificate regarding his physical fitness for the post in the Form prescribed under rule 10 of the Fundamental Rules. a. No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post if he has more than one spouse living or if such a person has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living. b. The person appointed to the post shall belong to the Village to which he is appointed or the adjoining village if no suitable candidate is available from that village.” 29. A reading of the Rule 7 of the Special Rules, particularly Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules makes it clear that only if a person is not available in the same village, then only the Appointing Authority should look for a person from adjoining village. A reading of the Rule 7 of the Special Rules, particularly Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules makes it clear that only if a person is not available in the same village, then only the Appointing Authority should look for a person from adjoining village. But the petitioner, who belongs to Adhikarapatti and who comes under priority category, was not given appointment, and some other person, namely, one Selvam, was appointed to Adhikarapatti in contravention to Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules. 30. Hence, I am of the view that the Rule 7 relating to prescribing the condition that the person shall belong to the same village, to which he is appointed or the adjoining village, shall be reconsidered by the Government in the light of the factual happenings and I will deal about it in the later portion of this judgment. 31. If Rule 7(c) is applied, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is the only person from the Adhikarapatti, and hence, he should have been appointed for the post of Village Assistant in Adhikarapatti. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 32. Accordingly, W.P.No.31317 of 2012 is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Village Assistant in Adhikarapatti or any one of the adjacent villages in Pappireddipatti Takuk, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. General Suggestions of this Court in the matter of recruitment to the post of Village Assistant : 33(i). I am of the considered view that selection process to any public employment cannot be confined to employment exchange alone, after the judgment of the Apex Court inSTATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [ 2011 (3) SCC 436 ] and selection should be made after calling for applications through advertisement in newspapers, announcing in radio and television etc., calling for applications from all the eligible candidates through open market. 33(ii). It is relevant to extract paragraphs 35 and 36 of the said judgment in STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [ 2011 (3) SCC 436 ] as hereunder in this regard: “APPOINTMENT / EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT: “35. 33(ii). It is relevant to extract paragraphs 35 and 36 of the said judgment in STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMATA MOHANTY [ 2011 (3) SCC 436 ] as hereunder in this regard: “APPOINTMENT / EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT: “35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from employment exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from employment exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in radio and television as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said article of the Constitution. (Vide: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, Arun Tewari. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb, State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and State of M.P. v. Mohd. Ibrahim). 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the notice board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit.” 33(iii). Even assuming that resorting to issuing of public advertisement is not necessary in order to avoid expenses, since the selection to the post of Village Assistant takes place at Taluk level, I am of the view the Government shall ensure that the recruitment shall not be confined to employment exchange alone. I am of the considered view that the Government could make it known about the recruitment to be made to the post of Village Assistants to all the concerned villagers by Tom-Toming and by affixing notices/Circulars of the Tahsildar calling for application for the post of Village Assistants, in the Panchayat Offices and all government buildings within the villages and in all the important places in the village. The Tahsildar could do it through the Village Administrative Officers of the concerned villages. After receipt of the applications from the candidates in the open market also, apart from receiving the list from the employment exchange, the selection process should commence. 34. Further, the facts of these cases make it clear that there are so many persons, who have passed 10th standard and +2, aspire to become Village Assistants. Hence, I am of the view that if wide publicity is made, so many persons with qualification of 10th standard and above could make applications and therefore, it is better to prescribe 10th standard as the qualification for appointment to the post of Village Assistant and the marks obtained in the 10th Standard could be the sole basis for selection subject to rule of reservation. The selection based on the marks obtained in 10th standard (S.S.L.C.) is suggested, since the 10th standard examination is the public examination conducted by the Government. Hence, I suggest the Government to make appropriate amendment in Rule 6 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Village Assistants regarding educational qualification as at least 10th standard. This would serve twin purposes. Firstly, selection could be based solely on the marks obtained in 10th standard. Secondly, selection could not be based on interview. 35. Hence, I suggest the Government to make appropriate amendment in Rule 6 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Village Assistants regarding educational qualification as at least 10th standard. This would serve twin purposes. Firstly, selection could be based solely on the marks obtained in 10th standard. Secondly, selection could not be based on interview. 35. Further, making selection solely based on interview could lead to arbitrariness and particularly, when there are a lot of interferences, as noted above, there cannot be a fair selection to the post of Village Assistants solely based on interview. I am of the view that no public employment shall be made solely based on the interview. Such a selection is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Even for appointment to the post of Village Administrative Officer in the Revenue Department, no interview is held. The Village Assistants work under the Village Administrative Officers. In fact, not only for the post of Village Administrative Officer, but, for all the posts included in Group IV Services, no interview is held by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, while making selection. It is solely based on written test. Even some of the posts of Group II Services are non-interview posts and selection to those posts is made solely based on written test. But selection merely based on interview would certainly lead to arbitrariness and the same cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 36. Since, the post of Village Assistant belongs to the lowest cadre, instead of holding written test, the selection could be made based on the marks obtained in 10th Standard, after making wide publicity, as stated above. I am of the view that the Government could also make appropriate amendment in the Special Rules in this regard. 37. Further, the Government should also clarify as to what is the adjoining village, that is, used in Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules. As detailed above, the persons belonging to far off villages are also appointed defeating the present Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules. Further, confining the appointment within the village causes difficulty in the matter of application of rule of reservation also. The village is not taken as a unit for the purpose of reservation. The Taluk is taken as a unit for the purpose of reservation. Further, confining the appointment within the village causes difficulty in the matter of application of rule of reservation also. The village is not taken as a unit for the purpose of reservation. The Taluk is taken as a unit for the purpose of reservation. Hence, the Government can also consider to delete Rule 7(c) of the Special Rules, particularly, since Rule 10 of the Special Rules relating to residence makes it compulsory that the Village Assistant shall reside in the village to which he is appointed and the Rule 11 of the Special Rules provide for transfer of Village Assistants even to other Taluks and District. Hence, I am of the view that the residence within Taluk may be prescribed as a requirement in the Special Rules. It is left to the Government to make suitable amendments to the Special Rules in this regard. 38. I am also of the view that the rule 7(a)(i) of the Special Rules that prescribes that one shall be able to ride a bi-cycle as an eligible condition for appointment to the post of Village Assistant is redundant. It could have been relevant upto the early part of nineties. Thereafter, it is a known fact that even in villages, two-wheelers replaced the bi-cycles effectively. Further, the transportation is not like the one in the olden days and now all the villages, particularly in Tamil Nadu, are well-connected by bus routes and even the remote villages are connected by mini buses. One can take a judicial notice of the fact that even the lost grade servants, like Office Assistants, in the Judicial Ministerial Service within Taluk level Courts do not use bi-cycles and they use two wheelers. It is also a known fact that cycle-rickshaws are replaced by auto-rickshaws. Hence, I am of the view that this Clause 7(a)(i) of the Special Rules is not necessary and the Government may consider to delete this clause in Rule 7 of the Special Rules. Conclusion : 39. These writ petitions are allowed and a direction is issued to the respective District Collectors and the Tahsildhars to appoint the petitioners as Village Assistants as referred to in paragraphs 23 and 32 of this judgment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 40. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 40. Before parting with these petitions, I place it on record the assistance rendered by Mr.V.Selvaraj, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae in W.P.No.9600 of 2013, by this Court.