Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1345 (MAD)

M. Nalini v. District Collector, Krishnagiri

2022-06-10

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in his office Ref.Na.Ka.No.1191/Aa1/2011, dated 28.02.2013, quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitione as 'Anganvadi Worker' at Kittampatti-2, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.) 1. The order impugned dated 28.02.2013, declining the claim of the writ petitioner to join duty in the post of 'Anganvadi Worker', is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Anganvadi Worker at Kittampatti-2, Krishnagiri Taluk on 06.08.2012. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Committee on the said date and produced all the necessary certificates, including Educational Certificates, Community Certificate, Nativity Certificate etc. 3. The petitioner states that the second respondent appointed the petitioner as Anganvadi worker on 17.09.2012. However, the writ petitioner had not received the order of appointment during the relevant point of time. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order of appointment was not served to the writ petitioner within a period of 15 days. Therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to join duty within the period of 15 days as contemplated in the appointment order. The petitioner during the relevant point of time was waiting for an order of appointment and after a lapse of about three months, she made a complaint in the helpline. Thereafter, the authorities issued the impugned order by stating that the order of appointment was attempted to be served and the Department Officials want in person to the residence of the petitioner and the petitioner was not available at that point of time In view of the fact that the petitioner was not in the address mentioned, they could not serve the appointment order for which the respondents cannot be blamed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to join duty as three months have lapsed. 5. As per the order of appointment, the petitioner ought to have joined duty within the period of 15 days. The petitioner states that the order of appointment had not been served to her. 6. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to join duty as three months have lapsed. 5. As per the order of appointment, the petitioner ought to have joined duty within the period of 15 days. The petitioner states that the order of appointment had not been served to her. 6. The second respondent filed counter-affidavit by stating that they went in person to serve the copy of the appointment order to the petitioner and the petitioner was not available and therefore, they could not serve the order of appointment to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner cannot shift the responsibility on the respondents. 7. The petitioner could not establish that the order of appointment had not been served to her by the second respondent. However, the respondents have stated that they have attempted to serve the copy of the appointment order in person and they failed in view of the fact that the petitioner was not available at that point of time. Such factors cannot be ascertained now after a lapse of eight years. There is no material evidence on record to establish that the order of appointment had not been served to the petitioner. Even in case, if it has not been served to the petitioner during the relevant point of time, the petitioner being a candidate who participated in the process of selection, ought to have approached the authorities within a reasonable period of time. Contrarily, the petitioner had waited for more than three months and thereafter, submitted a complaint through the helpline by contacting the respondents in their office. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot form a final opinion with reference to such disputed facts, which all are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences. The petitioner has not produced any such documents to establish her case and therefore, at this length of time, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of appointment and in the event of granting any such relief of appointment at this length of time, the same will set a wrong precedent. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.