Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3296 (MAD)

K. Deepa v. District Collector, Trichy

2022-09-14

S.SRIMATHY

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to impugned order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the respondent in RC.N6/231/15 and quash the same.) 1. The writ petition had been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order, dated 26.02.2016. 2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that for the purpose of filling up the vacancy relating to the post Noon Meal Organiser, the respondent had issued publication calling for the applications. The petitioner submitted her application for the said post. After due scrutiny of the petitioner's application with all relevant records relating to the eligibility criteria, the petitioner was allowed to attend the interview. On the basis of the list submitted by the selection committee and after being satisfied about the eligibility criteria, on merits, the respondent vide proceedings in R.C.N6/231/15, dated 19.02.2016 issued appointment order to the post of Noon Meal Organiser to the petitioner and she was allowed to join in the Noon Meal Centre attached to the Government Aadhi Dravidar Middle School, Aadanur on temporary basis. The Block Development Officer, after verifying the appointment order, directed the petitioner to join the school and the petitioner joined duty on 01.03.2016. But on very next day i.e. on 02.03.2016, when the petitioner reported for duty, the Block Development Officer orally directed the concerned Headmaster not to permit the petitioner to attend the duty. When the petitioner sought explanation, the Headmaster could not explain why the petitioner was prevented from attending duty. The petitioner tried to meet the Block Development Officer. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.4993/2016 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to attend the work based on the appointment order. When that writ petition came up for hearing along with several other writ petitions with a same set of allegations on 11.03.2016, this Court directed the Government Advocate to take instructions. Pending that writ petition, on 19.03.2016, the petitioner received the impugned order, dated 22.02.2016, terminating the petitioner's appointment and the reason for such termination is that the appointment order had been issued in the petitioner's name i.e., K.Deepa instead of the candidate namely, G.Deepa and this was found on verification of photograph in the application. Pending that writ petition, on 19.03.2016, the petitioner received the impugned order, dated 22.02.2016, terminating the petitioner's appointment and the reason for such termination is that the appointment order had been issued in the petitioner's name i.e., K.Deepa instead of the candidate namely, G.Deepa and this was found on verification of photograph in the application. At the time of joining duty, the impugned order though stated that the respondent had signed on 26.02.2016 and the same had been dispatched by Registered Post on 13.03.2016. Before she joined the duty on 01.03.2016, the Block Development Officer, Thuraiyur Panchayat Union on 29.02.2016 verified all the records along with the appointment order. On 01.03.2016, the concerned Head Master, after verification of the records, allowed the petitioner to join the duty. But he prevented the petitioner from attending duty on 02.03.2016. The further contention of the petitioner is that even though the impugned order was signed on 26.02.2016, the same was served to the petitioner on 13.03.2016. Therefore, the petitioner alleges deliberate, mischievous and fraudulent attitude of the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed this petition. 3. The respondent had filed counter and subsequently filed better another counter as per the direction of this Court. In the first counter, the first respondent stated that in order to fill up the vacancy to the post of Noon Meal Organizer and Assistants in Trichy District as per the orders of the Government in D.O.roc.35237/NMS-1/2012, dated 18.02.2015, applications were invited from the public by issuing paper publication as well as departmental notice. The respondents contended due to inadvertent error, instead of sending the appointment order to G.Deepa, it had been sent to the petitioner herein vide order dated 19.02.2016. Based on the letter, the petitioner had joined the duty in Aadhi Dravidar Middle School, Aadhanur on the forenoon on 01.03.2016. While processing the applications with reference to the selection list made by the selection committee, the Block Development Officer came across the fact that the order had been wrongly issued in favour of the petitioner herein instead of G.Deepa, W/o. Seerangan and immediately, he brought to the notice of the respondent and the respondent on verification of all the records found that the order has been wrongly sent to the petitioner. In order to set right the inadvertent error, the petitioner was not allowed to report to duty on the next day. In order to set right the inadvertent error, the petitioner was not allowed to report to duty on the next day. The selection committee after considering all parameters, selected G.Deepa and not the petitioner. When the inadvertent error was brought to the notice of the Block Development Officer, had directed the concerned Headmaster not to permit the petitioner to work as Noon Meal Organiser from 02.03.2016. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed a petition in W.P(MD) No.49932016 and the same is pending. 4. On a perusal of proceedings of the selection committee, it is clear that the petitioner herein could not have been preferred over the said G.Deepa since the petitioner hails from a well to-do family possessing RCC concrete house besides four acres of land with paddy cultivation worthy about Rs. 40,00,000/-, whereas, the said G.Deepa hails from poor Aadhi Dravidar family and her husband is a differently abled persons with 60% deformity and the said G.Deepa resides in the local village and studied B.A and B.Ed. The petitioner is not suitable for Noon Meal Organiser and is attempting to usurp the post on the administrative delay and non-communicating the impugned order to her. Therefore, the respondent prayed to dismiss this petition. 5. While the case was taken up for hearing, this Court had directed the respondent to file a better affidavit. Based on the direction, the second counter affidavit has been filed. In the second counter affidavit, it has been stated that the said G.Deepa, who was selected for the said post also reported to duty on 01.03.2016. Since there is a mistake due to over site, the entire confusion has occurred and the petitioner owns four acres of land with paddy cultivation, worth about a sum of Rs.49,00,000/-. Therefore, the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner is from a well to do family. The said G.Deepa comes from a poor family and needs to be accommodated. Hence the respondent prays to dismiss this petition. 6. Heard Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Mrs. D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has committed an act of perjury, because in the earlier affidavit, the respondent had not stated that the G.Deepa was reported to duty. 8. 6. Heard Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Mrs. D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent has committed an act of perjury, because in the earlier affidavit, the respondent had not stated that the G.Deepa was reported to duty. 8. On a perusal of records, this Court finds that in the application of K.Deepa, there was an enclosure of Transfer Certificate, which belongs to G.Deepa. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there was an utter confusion in the file maintained by the respondent. The Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has rightly pointed out that even the respondent has not clearly stated the reason why the confusion occurred. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea of perjury. 9. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondent has awarded marks in pencil. On perusing the records, this Court finds that marks were awarded in pencil only for particular candidates and for certain candidates, the marks had been awarded in pen. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that this was followed in the next union also. But in several cases this Court directed the recruiting agency to award marks only in pen. The practicing of awarding marks in pencil is deprecated. Therefore, this court is inclined to impose cost on the respondent for such practice. The respondent was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost payable to “SAKSHAM” Swami Sivanandha Sevarshram, Austin Patti Road, Thopur, Madurai Contact Person Sri Govindharaj Mobile Number: 63740 48342 The respondent had paid the cost of Rs.5000/- and the challan is produced before this Court. 10. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, due to the reason of not maintaining the records and applications of the said G.Deepa and K.Deepa properly, the confusion had occurred. In the order passed by the District Collector after the Selection Committee List, the name of the said G.Deepa is finding the place and not the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted any appointment order. 11. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.