Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3539 (MAD)

G. Deivanai v. District Collector, Dharmapuri

2022-09-29

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.23005/2015 AKS, dated 11.08.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner as a “noon meal organizer” in the 2nd respondent school.) 1. The writ petition has been filed, challenging the order of termination dated 11.08.2016, terminating the services of the writ petitioner from the post of Noon Meal Organizer. 2. The petitioner states that she participated in the process of selection for the post of Noon Meal Organizer. The petitioner furnished all the particulars and documents at the time of attending interview and she is eligible for appointment under the “Widow category”. The petitioner produced the Widow certificate issued by the Thasildar. Accordingly, the petitioner was selected and appointed in proceedings dated 21.08.2012 to the post of Noon Meal Organizer. 3. The third respondent/Tmt.T.Saroja filed a complaint against the writ petitioner, stating that the appointment of the writ petitioner was made illegally and she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31967 of 2015 and this Court passed an order on 08.10.2015, directing the District Collector, Dharmapuri, to consider the representation and dispose of the same after putting notice to the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the directions, the first respondent called upon the writ petitioner on 08.12.2015, to submit her explanations regarding the allegations made by the third respondent/Tmt.T.Saroja. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the first respondent on 15.12.2015 in person and sent the same through Registered post. Shockingly, the first respondent dismissed the services of the writ petitioner on the ground that she got remarried. Thus, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly contended that Widow remarrying a person, would not disentitle the appointed candidate to hold the posts of Noon Meal Organizer. At the time of selection, the petitioner submitted the certificate issued by the Tahsildar that she is a Widow. However, subsequently, she got remarried after appointment and therefore, the order of dismissal from service is untenable. There are many vacancies of Noon Meal Organizer posts is available in the District and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been disturbed unnecessarily. 5. However, subsequently, she got remarried after appointment and therefore, the order of dismissal from service is untenable. There are many vacancies of Noon Meal Organizer posts is available in the District and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been disturbed unnecessarily. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner falls under the Widow category for selection and appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organizer and she was appointed under the priority category of Widow, after verification of the certificate issued by the Thasildar and thus, there is no infirmity and consequently, the order of dismissal is to be set aside. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent objected the said contentions by stating that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.31967 of 2015, the first respondent conducted an enquiry, based on the complaint given by the third respondent/Tmt.T.Saroja. Accordingly, after issuance of notice to the parties, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, submitted his enquiry report to the District Collector through his proceedings No.16/2016/A2 dated 08.08.2016. Accordingly, final order was passed in proceedings dated 11.08.2016, dismissing the services of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner is now continuing in the post pursuant to the interim order granted in the present writ petition and therefore, she cannot claim any advantage merely on the ground that she is allowed to continue in service. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent contended that the petitioner suppressed the vital fact at the time of submitting her application for selection to the post of Noon Meal Organizer. The suppression of fact on the part of the writ petitioner in respect of her Widow status had been clearly revealed in the findings of the enquiry as well as final order passed by the first respondent. 8. As per the notification, the Noon Meal centre was allotted for Widow category. The petitioner secured appointment under the Widow category by suppressing the material facts regarding her status. 8. As per the notification, the Noon Meal centre was allotted for Widow category. The petitioner secured appointment under the Widow category by suppressing the material facts regarding her status. The documents examined by the competent authorities clearly reveals that the petitioner's husband name is Mr.Deivam, which is a credential document and the same would have been marked as a legally admissible documents in the Court proceedings whenever it is required in the eye of law. As far as the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, which stands in the name of Late Arumugam as the deceased husband of the petitioner, the following documents are considered: “1. Certificate issued by the Thasildar Palacode through his proceeding Mu.Mu.No.15547/2012 dated 07.08.2012. 2. D.Gayathri Educational Certificate issued by the Head Master Government High Secondary School, Ammani Mallapuram, Dharmapuri District dated 12.12.2013. 3. D.Kaviya Educational Certificate issued by the Head Master Government High Secondary School, Ammani Mallapuram, Dharmapuri District dated 12.12.2013. 4. Copy of the FIR in Crime No.232 of 2013 U/s.294 (b) 354 of IPC pending on the file of the Marandahalli Police Station (Judicial Magistrate Palacode) stands in the name of Deivam.” 9. All the above mentioned four documents stands in the name of Mr.Deivam as a father, which clearly reveals that the petitioner having legally wedded husband called Deivam, the respondents have arrived a conclusion that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact and secured public employment under the Widow category. The respondents have found that Mr.Deivam is the legally wedded husband of the writ petitioner. 10. The third respondent/Tmt.T.Saroja also filed a separate writ petition in W.P.No.33072 of 2016 with a prayer to direct the respondents therein to appoint her as Noon Meal Organizer at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Vattaganapatti, Palacode Panchayat Union. 11. The question arises, whether the writ petitioner Smt.Deivanai suppressed the material fact regarding her status as Widow and secured employment under the Widow category. In this regard, the third respondent filed a complaint against the writ petitioner and subsequently, filed W.P.No.31967 of 2015 and pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 08.10.2015, the respondents conducted an enquiry with reference to the documents and evidences. The enquiry was conducted after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the third respondent. They have submitted their explanations. In this regard, the third respondent filed a complaint against the writ petitioner and subsequently, filed W.P.No.31967 of 2015 and pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 08.10.2015, the respondents conducted an enquiry with reference to the documents and evidences. The enquiry was conducted after affording opportunity to the petitioner and the third respondent. They have submitted their explanations. The authorities verified the documents and found that the writ petitioner/G.Deivanai married Mr.Deivam in the year 1998 and from and out of their wedlock, two girl children born. The first girl child namely D.Gayathri was born on 05.03.2000 and the second girl child namely D.Kaviya was born on 09.01.2002 and both the girl children are studying IX Standard and VI Standard respectively. Therefore, the writ petitioner has suppressed her remarriage with Mr.Deivam in the year 1998 and obtained a false certificate from the Tahsildar as if she is a Widow and secured employment as Noon Meal Organizer. The name of the children and the name of the husband of the writ petitioner are found in the School Records, Family Cards etc., In the School Records, the father's name of the children is mentioned as Deivam and mother's name is mentioned as Deivanai. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, has submitted a report, stating that even at the time of interview on 08.08.2012, the petitioner was living with Mr.Deivam and the first girl child born on 05.03.2000, 12 years prior to the date of interview. In other words, as on the date of interview, the first girl child was aged about 12 years and the second child aged about 10 years and both of them were studying in Schools. The Tahsildar issued a certificate based on the statement of the writ petitioner and the said Widow certificate was issued by the Thasildar without conducting any field enquiry. The genuinity of the status of the writ petitioner as Widow was not enquired into by the Tahsildar and the said certificate was issued and by abusing the said Widow certificate, the petitioner secured employment to the post of Noon Meal Organizer. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is continuing in employment for the past about 10 years. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is continuing in employment for the past about 10 years. 13. Perusal of the documents reveals that the third respondent /Tmt.T.Saroja, soon after the appointment of the writ petitioner made a complaint against the writ petitioner and no action was taken by the District Collector and thereafter, she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.31967 of 2015 and pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 08.10.2015, an enquiry was conducted and consequently, the writ petitioner was terminated from service. The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition on 29th August 2016 and she is continuing in service only based on the interim order passed in the present writ petition. 14. Such a litigious employment would not be a ground to seek protection of her services, since it is established that she has suppressed the material facts and secured employment under the priority category of Widow. A candidate, who suppressed the vital material fact and secured employment under the Widow category based on the false widow certificate, she is not entitled to seek protection merely based on the interim order and the litigious employment at no circumstances would extend protection to the petitioner in the present writ petition 15. In view of the fact that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts and secured public employment under the Widow category, the order impugned passed by the first respondent is in consonance with the established principles and there is no infirmity as such. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.