Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4062 (MAD)

T. Padma v. Director of Social Welfare, Chennai

2018-11-01

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 10.12.2012 filed by the petitioner to cancel the appointment of the 5th Respondent as Anganwadi Worker of Child Welfare Centre at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Dwarakapuri in Krishnagiri Block and appoint the petitioner in the said place. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the Post of Anganwadi worker of Child Welfare Centre at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Dwarakapuri in Krishnagiri Block. The respondents conducted an interview and the 5th respondent was appointed contrary to the rules in force. The 5th respondent was not residing within the radius of 3 Kms of that village. Therefore, the appointment of the writ petitioner is illegal and in violation of the guidelines issued in this regard. 3. The learned counsel Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the norms fixed by the Government was scrupulously followed, while undertaking the process of selection. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the 5th respondent has been selected for the Post of Anganwadi Worker, since she is residing within 1 Km from the Center and she has passed S.S.L.C and she had answered all the questions in the interview and since the main criteria for appointment to the Post of Anganwadi Worker is ability, educational qualification, knowledge about the scheme and residency. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that she is a deserted woman, is not applicable for the post of Anganwadi Worker. 5. This Court is of an opinion that the decision of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with by the Courts' in a routine manner. The decision of the Selection Committee can be questioned, if there is any malpractice or corrupt activities. In such an event, the person, who is approaching the Court, is bound to establish all such allegations. In the absence of any such allegations, the decision of the Selection Committee is binding on all the policies. 6. The decision of the Selection Committee can be questioned, if there is any malpractice or corrupt activities. In such an event, the person, who is approaching the Court, is bound to establish all such allegations. In the absence of any such allegations, the decision of the Selection Committee is binding on all the policies. 6. In the present case, the ground raised by the writ petitioner has been answered by the respondent in their counter, by stating that the writ petitioner is residing within 1 Km from the Center and she had passed S.S.L.C. This being the factum of the case, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. This Court is of an opinion that in view of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, setting out the facts and details, there is no necessity to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal filed by the writ petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.