Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3149 (MAD)

J. Rajendran v. District Collector, Villupuram

2022-09-05

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.6.2016 by holding enquiry into the illegal appointment of the 3rd respondent as Sweeper to work as Electrician in the 2nd respondent Panchayat to secure the ends of Justice.) 1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 23.06.2016 by holding enquiry into the illegal appointment of the 3rd respondent as Sweeper to work as Electrician in the 2nd respondent Panchayat. 2. The petitioner states that he is a differently-abled person and registered his educational qualification in the District Employment Exchange, Villupuram, in the year 1995. The petitioner states that he is working as Sweeper in a temporary vacancy in Marakkanam Town Panchayat from 16.03.2002. There was a permanent vacancy of Sweeper in the said Marakkanam Town Panchayat and the petitioner submitted a representation on 15.07.2013. The respondents have not considered the grievance of the petitioner to appoint him as regular employee in the post of Sweeper. Thus, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2102 of 2014 and this Court passed an order on 28.01.2014, directing the respondents therein to dispose of the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 15.07.2013, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.2102 of 2014, dated 28.01.2014, the 2nd respondent passed an order in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/85/2013, dated 07.03.2014, stating that the sanctioned posts of Sanitary Worker are to be filled only by following the procedures contemplated and by calling the names of the eligible persons from the District Employment Office, in accordance with the rule of reservation, and therefore, the representation of the writ petitioner for providing appointment cannot be considered. Pertinently, the said order of rejection has not been challenged by the writ petitioner, though it was passed in proceedings dated 07.03.2014. Again, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to hold enquiry into the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Sweeper. 4. Pertinently, the said order of rejection has not been challenged by the writ petitioner, though it was passed in proceedings dated 07.03.2014. Again, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to hold enquiry into the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Sweeper. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the 3rd respondent was appointed in an irregular manner without following the procedures as contemplated. The 2nd respondent is extracting the work of an Electrician by appointing the 3rd respondent in the post of Sweeper. Therefore, actions are to be initiated by the District Collector, who is the Inspector of Panchayats, under the provisions of the Act and Rules. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that, on exigency, the petitioner was engaged as Sweeper in Khuzhu in the 2nd respondent Town Panchayat as Non-Muster Roll on daily wages and in the Khuzhu, he worked as such from the year 2007 to July 2011, and left the job. Again, at his request, he was engaged in the Khuzhu as Sweeper for the second time on daily wages and thus, worked from January, 2012 to July, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner joined in a Self Help Group functioning in the name and style of Dr.Ambedthkar Angal Suyauthavi Khuzhu, who undertook the job of public health, street light maintenance and water supply maintenance in the Village. Since August, 2014, the petitioner has been under employment with the Self Help Group and received remuneration from the said Group. Therefore, the petitioner was not appointed by the 2nd respondent in a sanctioned post at any point of time. Regarding the appointment of the 3rd respondent, it is contended that a list of eligible candidates was invited from the District Employment Office, Villupuram, which in turn, sponsored the names of the suitable candidates for appointment to the vacant posts of Sweeper. The District Employment Office sponsored the names of three candidates following the rotation system. The Selection Committee of the Town Panchayat selected the 3rd respondent from the list of candidates sponsored by the District Employment Office. On selection made, the 2nd respondent issued the order of appointment to the 3rd respondent and accordingly, he joined. 6. The District Employment Office sponsored the names of three candidates following the rotation system. The Selection Committee of the Town Panchayat selected the 3rd respondent from the list of candidates sponsored by the District Employment Office. On selection made, the 2nd respondent issued the order of appointment to the 3rd respondent and accordingly, he joined. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that, out of three candidates sponsored by the District Employment Office, two candidates had not participated in the process of selection. However, the said fact cannot be a ground to nullify the appointment order issued in favour of the 3rd respondent by following the procedures as contemplated. 7. The 2nd respondent, in their counter affidavit, have stated that the 3rd respondent, having working knowledge of electrical works, attends to electrical related works also in the Panchayat and that apart, he is performing the duties of the Sweeper in the 2nd respondent Town Panchayat. It is contended that, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.2102 of 2014, the representation submitted by the writ petitioner was also considered and an order was passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 07.03.2014. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has neither challenged the appointment order of the 3rd respondent, nor the order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings, dated 07.03.2014, issued pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.2102 of 2014, dated 28.01.2014. 9. A writ petition, challenging the process of selection, may be entertained by the High Court, if such selection is tainted with allegations of mala fides or if corrupt activities are established. A person approaching the Court by way of a writ proceedings has to establish a right or infringement of any such right. In the present case, the name of the writ petitioner was not sponsored through the District Employment Office to participate in the process of selection. He was not appointed as a regular employee. Contrarily, he was engaged as a temporary employee of the Self Help Group and he was receiving salary from the said Group and therefore, he cannot be considered as an employee of the Town Panchayat. To establish the appointment of the writ petitioner, he has not furnished the copy of the Appointment Order, if any, issued by the Executive Officer. Contrarily, he was engaged as a temporary employee of the Self Help Group and he was receiving salary from the said Group and therefore, he cannot be considered as an employee of the Town Panchayat. To establish the appointment of the writ petitioner, he has not furnished the copy of the Appointment Order, if any, issued by the Executive Officer. Thus, the petitioner has not established any right so as to interfere with the order of appointment of the 3rd respondent. If at all any irregularity or illegality is traced out by the petitioner, it is left open to him to approach the competent authority, namely, the District Collector, by way of a complaint. 10. With these observations, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.