ORDER : PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.808/2018/Vu1 dated 05.11.2019 and quash the same as illegal, ultravirus without any authority without any sanction and consequently to direct the third respondent herein to appoint the petitioner for the post of Village Panchayat Secretary of Matthakarai Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. This Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.808/2018/Vu1, dated 05.11.2019, quash the same and consequently, direct the third respondent herein to appoint the petitioner for the post of Village Panchayat Secretary of Matthakarai Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband passed away on 03.06.2014 leaving behind the petitioner and two children. The petitioner has completed 10th Standard during the year 1999 and she has also completed Nursing Assistant / Auxiliary Course and the same have been registered before the District Employment Office, Madurai. She has also possessed priority category as Destitute Widow and the same has also been registered in the Employment Registered Office with the seniority, dated 26.10.2015. In the said circumstances, the third respondent has published a Notification calling for application to fill up the post of Village Panchayat Secretary, dated 27.03.2018 for Matthakarai Village for the rotation of BC Women other than Muslims category. As per the said Notification, the petitioner applied for the said post along with her Educational Qualification, Nativity Certificate, Community Certificate and Priority Certificate as Destitute Widow and Ex-Serviceman Dependency Certificate. On satisfying with the same, the third respondent called the petitioner for interview vide proceedings, dated 05.02.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner attended the interview on 14.02.2019 and produced all documents before the Committee. However, without considering the petitioner's candidature and qualification, the fourth respondent was selected. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Destitute Widow and daughter of Ex-Serviceman and she also obtained an Ex-Serviceman Dependency Certificate. Apart from that, she has also completed Nursing Assistant / Auxiliary Course and the age of the petitioner is 34 years, whereas, the age of the fourth respondent is only 20 years. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Destitute Widow and daughter of Ex-Serviceman and she also obtained an Ex-Serviceman Dependency Certificate. Apart from that, she has also completed Nursing Assistant / Auxiliary Course and the age of the petitioner is 34 years, whereas, the age of the fourth respondent is only 20 years. At the time of interview, the fourth respondent did not possess the other qualifications which were possessed by the petitioner. Hence, the appointment of the fourth respondent is not sustainable and arbitrary and accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders. 4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit that the post of Village Panchayat Secretary, Matthakarai Village was reserved for Backward Classes (other than Muslims) (non-priority) candidates and as such, possessing Destitute Widow Certificate has no relevance in the selection. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are residing in the same Village Panchayat and are hailing from BC Community. The petitioner's age is 34 years and the fourth respondent's age is 20 years. Both have studied upto 10th Standard and seven candidates were short-listed and interviewed. During the interview, the fourth respondent was preferred over other six candidates including the petitioner herein. The selection of the fourth respondent is based on Expert Committee's opinion / Selection Committee that was mainly based on the performance of the fourth respondent in the oral test / interview. The fourth respondent joined as Village Panchayat Secretary, Matthakarai Village, on 06.11.2019. The fourth respondent has been selected as per the parameters prescribed in G.O.(Ms).No.175, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 05.12.2006 read with G.O.(Ms)No.72, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 09.07.2013. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner and the fourth respondent participated in the selection process for the post of Village Panchayat Secretary in Matthakarai Village. The age of the petitioner and the fourth respondent are not in dispute. Whereas, the petitioner's age is 34 and the fourth respondent's age is 20. The qualifications possessed by the petitioner and the fourth respondent are not in dispute and both of them possessed 10th Standard. The age of the petitioner and the fourth respondent are not in dispute. Whereas, the petitioner's age is 34 and the fourth respondent's age is 20. The qualifications possessed by the petitioner and the fourth respondent are not in dispute and both of them possessed 10th Standard. However, the petitioner possessed more qualification than the fourth respondent. The petitioner additionally possessed Nursing Assistant / Auxiliary Course and she is a Destitute Widow and she has also obtained an Ex-Serviceman Dependency Certificate. However, both of them are hailing from the same Village. 7. In order to ascertain the selection process conducted by the Selection Committee, this Court, called for the records and accordingly, records have been produced before this Court. It is seen that fifty candidates have applied for the said post. Now, the issue before this Court is with reference to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The details of the petitioner and the fourth respondent are as follows: OTHER LANGUAGE 8. The comparative statement of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit is as follows : Sl. No. Particulars Petitioner-Shanthi 4th Respondent –C.Sugapriya 1 Community BC/Agamudayar BC/Maravar 2 Age 34 21 3 Residence Periyapoolampatti, Mathakarai (nearby Village) Periyapoolampatti, Mathakarai Village (nearby Village) 4 Educational Qualification 10th Standard 10th Standard 9. However, there was a variation in the selection process and the counter filed by the third respondent. In the selection process, the petitioner's candidature is mentioned as a Widow, whereas, in the counter, the third respondent did not mention about the marital status. Further, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a Destitute Widow and obtained Ex-Serviceman Dependency Certificate. Apart from that, the petitioner also possessed Nursing Assistant / Auxiliary Course. The comparative statement reveals that the petitioner is more suitable than the fourth respondent. As per the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the appointing authority is the Village President, however, in the absence of the elected President, based on the direction issued by the District Collector, the Block Development Officer deserved to fill up the post through open market. 10. Hence, the selection process of the third respondent is arbitrary and therefore, the appointment order issued in favour of the fourth respondent is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is set aside. 10. Hence, the selection process of the third respondent is arbitrary and therefore, the appointment order issued in favour of the fourth respondent is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is set aside. The third respondent is directed to issue posting order to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.