IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.24845 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 S.Rajalakshmi .. Petitioner Vs. The Tahsildar, Vanur Taluk, Vanur, Villupuram District. .. Respondent This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in proceedings ref.No.Na.Ka.Aa.4/1580/2010, dated 26.10.2010 on the file of the respondent and to quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : .Mr.M.Pari For Respondent : Ms.C.Devi, GA - - - - ORDER
The petitioner has come forward to challenge an order, dated 26.10.2010 passed by the respondent Tahsildar, Vanur Taluk, wherein and by which the petitioner was informed that as to why her appointment as a Village Assistant should not be cancelled as she is not qualified to hold the post and that she was also asked to explain within three days from the date of receipt of the order.
2.When the matter came up on 2.11.2010, this Court directed notice to be taken by the Government Advocate and an interim stay was granted. The said interim order came to be extended from time to time and finally extended until further orders on 1.3.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has filed a vacate stay application in M.P.No.1 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit, dated 10.1.2011.
3.It is seen from the records that the Government by G.O.Ms.No.155, Revenue Service, dated 28.03.2010 had directed to fill up the Village Assistants’ posts from 6.12.2001 to 31.07.2009 in all Districts after observing all rules and regulations in terms of G.O.Ms.No.521, dated 17.4.1998. The Tahsildars themselves being the appointing authority were directed to calculate the vacancies. If there are two Village Assistants in one village, the excess post should be wound up as and when that Village Assistant retired from service. By the same G.O, the Villupuram District was allotted 575 Village Assistants, out of which 32 posts are to be filled up on compassionate grounds and 543 posts by employment exchange. With reference to Vanur Taluk, 31 posts were allotted.
4.Therefore, the respondent had obtained a list of candidates from the employment exchange as per the roster and conducted interview between 04.10.2010 and 15.10.2010 and granted appointment orders. Before sending final report, the District Collector had reviewed the appointments. As per the G.O., the educational qualification is a pass on 5th standard in a recognised school. As per the Government letter, Revenue, dated 7.11.2008, maximum educational qualification was 10th standard fail. But on scrutiny, it was found that many number of persons who had passed 10th standard were appointed. Therefore, these irregularities were found out and show cause notices were issued for cancelling those appointments. Since the qualification for appointment to the post of Village Assistant was only a 5th standard pass from the recognized school and the petitioner having passed SSLC, she is ineligible to be considered for the post of Village Assistant. The mistake made by the respondent cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner. It is also stated that if such higher qualification appointees are appointed to the lower post, it may create anomalies while the Village Assistant will be more qualified than the Village Administrative Officer or Junior Assistant.
5.In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani Vs. District & Sessions Judge reported in (2000) 2 SCC 606, for contending that a higher qualification should not be a ground to deny an employment to a lower post. The following passages found in paragraphs 20 and 21 may be usefully extracted below:-
“20.If an employee does not perform the duties attached to the post disciplinary proceedings can certainly be taken against him. An employer cannot throw up his hands in despair and devise a method denying appointments to a person who otherwise meets the requisite qualifications on the ground that if appointed, he would not perform his duties. Qualification prescribed is minimum. Higher qualification cannot become a disadvantage to the candidate.
21.A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.” (Emphasis added)
6.Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner had possessed higher qualification than what was prescribed for the post, she should be disqualified from holding the said post. Hence the writ petition will stand allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
25.04.2011
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
vvk
To
The Tahsildar,
Vanur Taluk,
Vanur,
Villupuram District.
K.CHANDRU, J.
vvk
ORDER IN
W.P.NO.24845 of 2010
25.04.2011