BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11/01/2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
Writ Petition (MD) No. 9685 of 2008
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2008
V. Lakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Special Commissioner
and Secretary to Government
Social Welfare & N.N.P
(S.W.7) Department
Secretariat
Chennai.
2. The District Collector
Ramanathapuram District
Ramanathapuram.
3. The District Program Officer
Social Welfare and Nutritious
Meal Program
Ramanathapuram.
4. The District Child Development
Project Officer
Ramanathapuram.
5. P. Maheshwari ... Respondents
Prayer
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in
Na.Ka.No.1656/A1/08 dated 11/10/2008 of the second respondent quash the same and
consequently direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as the Mini
Anganwadi worker for Patti (Posukudi) centre.
!For petitioner ... Mr.B.Pugalendhi
^For respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar,
Govt.Advocate for R.1
Mr.R.Gowri Shankar
for R.5.
- - - - -
:ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the relief of a
writ of certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records in
Na.Ka.No.1656/A1/08 dated 11/10/2008 of the second respondent/District
Collector, Ramanathapuram and to quash the same and also resultantly, directing
him to appoint the petitioner as “Mini Anganwadi Worker” for Patti (Posukudi)
Centre.
2. Before dealing into the merits of the case, the factual back drop of
the case is stated hereunder:
According to the petitioner, the Government by means of G.O.Ms.No.186
Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Program Department dated 4/10/2007 has
accorded sanction for creation of 3,168 mini centres in Tamil Nadu. The first
respondent pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, has issued the following
guidelines in respect of appointment of “Mini Anganwadi Workers”. They are as
follows:
a. The candidate should be a female and preference should be given to
destitute widows & poor, SC/ST Minorities as per the rules in force.
b. Age: 20 years to 35 years of age relaxation upto 40 years will be
given to widows, deserted women and candidates in hill areas.
c. Educational qualification:- 10th Standard passed.
d. Residential criteria:- Shall be residing within a distance of 3 Kms
from the centre and in the case of non-availability of any local candidates,
persons residing in a radius of 10 Kms shall be considered.
e. Mode of appointment:- Selection Committee comprising of District
Program Officer, Child Development Project Officer and Medical Officer shall
select the eligible candidates.
f. Appointing authority:- Eligible candidate selected by the selection
Committee shall be appointed by the District Collector.
g. Honorarium:- As ordered in G.O.Ms.No.186, Social Welfare and
Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 4/10/2007.”
3. The second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by his order
dated 2/7/2008, directed the third respondent/District Program Officer,
Ramanathapuram to fill up the vacancies for Mini Anganwadis in Ramanathapuram
District. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 2/7/2008 called for
filling up the vacancies. The petitioner has applied for the post of “Mini
Anganwadi Worker” for Patti (Posukudi). A call letter dated 21/7/2008 has been
sent to the petitioner for an interview slated on 25/7/2008 by the fourth
respondent.
4. One Kalaiselvi, Vellayammal, Kamatchi, Sridevi, Kavitha, Maheshwari
have attended the interview along with the petitioner on 25/7/2008. All the
participants in the interview are from Most Backward Communities. The
petitioner’s husband expired on 4/12/2007 and she is a destitute widow.
5. The second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, by means of
his proceedings dated 11/10/2008 has temporarily appointed the fifth respondent
for the post of “Mini Anganwadi Worker”.
6. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as
per Government letter dated 20/3/2008, wherein guidelines have been issued, the
petitioner should have been selected instead of the fifth respondent by the
third and fourth respondents and on whose recommendation, the second respondent
has appointed the fifth respondent.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that
the impugned appointment order dated 11/10/2008 issued by the second
Respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram, is against the basic rules for
appointment to the post of “Anganwadi Workers” and therefore, it is not legally
sustainable in the eye of law.
8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
preference ought to be given to the destitute widows and poor and the impugned
order dated 11/10/2008 passed by the second respondent/District Collector in
appointing the fifth respondent is against the guidelines issued by the first
respondent dated 20/3/1988 and as such, the impugned order of the second
respondent dated 11/10/2008 is to be quashed.
9. The sum and substance of the plea put forward on the side of the writ
petitioner is that the writ petitioner and the fifth respondent belong to the
Most Backward Community and that the petitioner comes under the category of
Destitute woman/widow and as such, she should have been appointed instead of the
fifth respondent.
10. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Government Advocate
appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 that the third respondent/ District Program
Officer issued a Notification to fill up the vacancies of the Anganwadi Workers
and Helpers in Ramanathapuram on 2/7/2008 and the said Notification, included
the Patti (Posukudi) Centre.
11. According to the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 4, the petitioner has applied for the post of “Anganwadi
Worker” for Anganwadi Patti and as per the interview call letter sent to the
petitioner, she has attended the interview on 27/8/2008 and she has produced the
relevant documents and certificates before the Selection Committee. The
Selection Committee comprising of the third respondent/District Program Officer,
the fourth respondent/District Child Development Project Officer, Ramanathapuram
and the District Medical Officer have to select an eligible candidate.
12. The contention of the learned Government Advocate appearing for
Respondents 1 to 4 is that the fifth respondent/Maheshwari is aged 29 years,
whereas the petitioner’s age has been 22 and the fifth respondent has been seven
years senior in age than that of the petitioner which has been taken into
account by the Selection Committee for her appointment and hence the fifth
respondent/ Maheshwari is a more qualified person inasmuch as she has completed
B.A.Degree (History). In effect, the contention of the learned Government
Advocate appearing for R.R.1 to 4 is the Selective Committee has recommended the
fifth respondent for the post of “Mini Anganwadi Worker” for Patti (Posukudi)
Centre and accordingly, the second respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram
in his impugned proceeding dated 11/10/2008 has appointed the fifth respondent
temporarily as “Mini Anganwadi Worker”.
13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Destitute widow.
Further, as per letter No.355/S.W.7(1)/2008-2 dated 20/3/2008 of the first
respondent/Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare &
NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9, a preference should be given to
the destitute widows and poor, SC/ST Minorities as per the Rules in force and
the age limit has been prescribed as 20 – 35 years of age. Relaxation upto 40
years will be given to widows, deserted women and candidates in hill areas.
14. A scrutiny of the letter No.355/S.W.7(1)/ 2008-2 dated 20/3/2008 of
the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Social
Welfare & NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 candidly points out
that the destitute widow and poor belonging to SC/ST Minority Communities, will
have to be given preference in the matter of selection of an eligible candidate
for the post of “Mini Anganwadi Worker”.
15. Generally, in the matter of appointments, the view taken by the
expert Committee or Selection Committee cannot be interfered with, because of
the simple fact that the persons who are in the Selection Committee or expert
Committee are supposed to be the right persons for selecting the eligible
candidate for a particular post.
16. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner is a
destitute widow aged about 23 years. However, her qualification is SSLC (X
Standard). But the selected person namely the fifth respondent is aged 29 years
at the time of her selection and her qualification is B.A.Degree (History).
Though an endeavour has been made on the part of R.R.1 to 4 that the fifth
respondent is senior in age by seven years to that of the petitioner and
further, she has completed B.A.(History), yet this Court is of the considered
view that in the instant case on hand, the preference to be given to the
destitute widow namely the petitioner as per the letter No.355/S.W.7(1)/2008-2
dated 20/3/2008 of the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Secretary to
Government, Social Welfare & NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 has
not been obviously kept in mind or taken into consideration by the Selection
Committee or by the second Respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram while
issuing the impugned order dated 11/10/2008 in appointing the fifth respondent
overriding the case of the petitioner.
17. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the
learned Government Advocate appearing for R.R.1 to 4 that the fifth respondent,
who has been appointed as per the order of the second respondent/District
Collector, Ramanathapuram dated 11/10/2008 is continuing to work as “Mini
Anganwadi Worker” and she continues to serve till even today.
18. An individual can challenge the selection process on grounds of mala
fide or other patent irregularities committed in the selection process.
19. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the judicial
review of an administrative action will be justified in case of mala fide or
procedural irregularities.
20. By and large, it is not the function of a Court of law sitting in writ
jurisdiction to convert itself into a Court of appeal over the decisions of the
selection committee.
21. In the instant case on hand, it is not explained to the satisfaction
of this Court on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 as to why the petitioner has
not been given preference in the matter of selection for the post of “Anganwadi
Worker” when she comes under the category of Destitute widow.
22. Inasmuch as the guidelines issued in letter No.355/S.W.7(1)/2008-2
dated 20/3/2008 of the first respondent/Special Commissioner and Secretary to
Government, Social Welfare & NMP (S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9 has
not been borne in mind or taken into consideration by the Selection Committee or
even by the second Respondent/District Collector, Ramanathapuram at the time of
issuance of impugned order dated 11/10/2008, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment of “Anganwadi
Worker” in Ramanathapuram District, in an existing vacancy or in a vacancy
likely to arise in the near future by the appropriate authorities concerned
including the second Respondent/District Collector by adhering to the guidelines
issued in the aforesaid letter of the Government dated 20/3/2008 in true letter
and spirit and this Court issues this direction on the basis of Fair play,
Equity, Good conscience and even as a matter of prudence and this exercise is to
be carried out by the authorities concerned within a period eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the authorities concerned
including the second respondent/District Collector are to act dispassionately
uninfluenced and untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in
this writ petition to prevent an aberration of justice.
23. With the above observation and directions, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
mvs.
To
1. The Special Commissioner
and Secretary to Government
Social Welfare & N.N.P
(S.W.7) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The District Collector,Ramanathapuram District.
3. The District Program Officer
Social Welfare and Nutritious
Meal Program
Ramanathapuram.
4. The District Child Development
Project Officer, Ramanathapuram.