IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.8.2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Writ Petition No.646 of 2009 K.Savithiri .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri. 2. The District Program Officer WBA ICDS Dharmapuri. 3. Amudha .. Respondents ----- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the appointment order passed by the first respondent vide Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1964/Aa1/2007 dated 11.11.2008 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Anganvadi Helper in Strapatti Center, Harur Union, Dharmapuri District. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Kalai Selvan For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.Arun, Addl.G.P. ----- O R D E R
The writ petitioner, who is stated to have studied upto 6th standard, having two children and husband alive, capable of reading and writing, has applied for the post of Anganvadi Helper in Setrapatti Centre, Harur Union and she also attended the interview. According to her, she was selected and a list was published by the second respondent on 13.6.2008. However, the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent/District Collector dated 11.11.2008 selecting the third respondent to that post. Challenge is made to the appointment of the third respondent as Anganvadi Helper on the ground that the petitioner is more qualified than the third respondent, that the petitioner was in fact selected by the second respondent as per the list published and was subsequently changed and that the petitioner could read and write well, when the third respondent cannot read and write and therefore, the appointment of the third respondent is illegal.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector, it is stated that the petitioner, third respondent and one Mageswari were short listed from the candidates who have applied for the said post and the said list was published on 13.6.2008. After publication of the short list, the above said three candidates were called for and the first respondent has selected the third respondent. It is also stated that the third respondent was a resident of the same Village and senior in age, apart from the fact that she is a widow and having two female children. On the other hand, the petitioner is 26 years old and living with her husband and therefore, considering the petitioner and the third respondent, the third respondent was selected on the basis of the guidelines.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that she is the resident of the same Village and she was selected based on the performance in the interview, while the petitioner is junior in age.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the records.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the list published as short list on 13.6.2008, in the name of the third respondent, it is stated as widow, same area, aged 34 years and not able to read. On the other hand, the petitioner, who is stated as No.2 in the list, is stated as 27 years, belonging to the same area and able to read. There is one other candidate V.Mageswari, who is also stated to be a widow of 40 years, unable to read. According to him, the said list should be taken as a selection list, since, as per the said list, the petitioner being indicated as the second person, is, admittedly, a person who is able to read and as per the guideline, the person who is able to read should be given priority. On the other hand, the records show that it is not a selection list, but, it is only a short list of eligible candidates, who would be subsequently selected by the process of selection. The short list was published on 13.6.2008, while the selection was made subsequently, which resulted in the appointment order issued to the third respondent on 11.11.2008 and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the short list should be treated as selection list is not sustainable.
6. The further contention of the petitioner which requires consideration is that among the petitioner and the third respondent, the third respondent is stated in the short list as a person unable to read, while the petitioner is stated as a person able to read and therefore, among the petitioner and the third respondent, the petitioner should have been given preference. In the records, even though it is stated that the third respondent is unable to read, but she belong to the same area, the Collector has made an endorsement that during the time of interview, the third respondent was able to read and write. The records also show that the third respondent has, in fact, signed the application form filling up various contents by herself on 25.8.2009. Therefore, it is stated that the District Collector, even though stated in the short list that the third respondent was unable to read, has himself verified during the time of interview and found that the third respondent was able to read and write and taking note of the said fact, along with additional factor that she is a widow, the third respondent came to be selected.
7. In my considered opinion, there is absolutely no illegality or impropriety in the selection of the third respondent. Merely because certain statement has been made in the short list about the ability of the third respondent not to read and write, which is found otherwise in the interview, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the appointment order. The guideline, as produced before this Court, shows that it is only among the persons who participate in the interview, following factors are sought to be taken into consideration
(i) persons should be from the same village;
(ii) must know reading and writing; and
(iii) destitute and widows should be given preference.
8. In such circumstances, when the petitioner and the third respondent are equal in respect of the first two requirements, only the third respondent being a widow has been given preference, which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. In such view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition fails. However, it is made clear that if any such vacancy arises, the first respondent shall consider the name of the petitioner, if she is otherwise eligible.
P.JYOTHIMANI, J.
[kpl]
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.
Index : Yes 26.8.2009. Internet : Yes kpl To 1. The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri. 2. The District Program Officer WBA ICDS Dharmapuri. W.P.No.646 of 2009.