IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 15-11-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN W.P.Nos. 19160 and 19485 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 1 of 2009 S.Sabitha .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19160 of 2009 R.Malliga .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 .. Versus .. 1. The District Collector, Vellore District. .. 1st Respondent in both W.Ps. 2. The Commissioner of Panchayat Union Anaicut, Vellore District. .. 2nd Respondent in W.P.19160 of 2009 and 3rd Respondent in W.P.19485 of 2009 3. The Personal Assistant to Collector of Vellore, Noon Meal Scheme, Collector's Office, Vellore. .. 2nd Respondent in W.P.19485 of 2009 4.Tmt.Amutha .. 3rd Respondent in W.P.19160 of 2009 and 4th Respondent in W.P.19485 of 2009 Prayer in W.P.No.19160 of 2009: This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to appointment order as Noon Meal Organizer Post at Vasantha Nadai Panchayat Union Middle School in favour of 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.PG1/1994/2008, dated 21.7.2009 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and directing the first respondent to appoint as Noon Meal Organizer of Panchayat Middle School of Vasanthanadai Village, Anaicut Panchayat Union, Vellroe District and grant such as relief as deems fit under the circumstances. Prayer in W.P.No.19485 of 2009: This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by the first respondent dated 21.7.2009 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3, to appoint the petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Vasanthanadai in the light of the G.O.Ms.Nos.203 dated 19.8.2005 and pass such further or other orders. For Petitioner in W.P.No.19160 of 2009 : Mr. R.Margabandhu For Petitioner in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 : Ms.Sakunthala for Mr. V.Madhavan For 1st Respondent in W.P.No.19160 of 2009 and Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 : Mr. R.Ravichandran, Addl.Govt. Pleader. For 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.19160 of 2009 : Mr. R.Thirugnanam For 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.19160 of 2009 and 4th Respondent in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 : Mr. P.Subba Reddy C O M M O N O R D E R The common question is involved in the writ petitions whether the 4th respondent Mrs. M.Amutha is vailidly appointed. The parties referred in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 are described in the same manner as described in the above writ petition for the sake of convenience. The applications were called for appointment of Noon Meal Organizer in the Village of Vasanthanadai, Anaicut Panchayat Union, Vellore District. All the petitioners including the 4th respondent applied for the same post and interview was conducted on 19.1.2009 and finally the 4th respondent was appointed on 21.7.2009. The said order is being challenged in all these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners alleged that the 4th respondent is from far away place viz., Iraivankadu, Anaikattu Panchayat Union, which is about 7 Kms., from Vasanthanadai Village. They also pointed out that the 4th respondent's husband is working as a Clerk in the Panchayat and therefore she should not have been appointed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that as per the Government Order, only the local candidates should be given preference for the post of Noon Meal Organizer and in case the proper candidates are not found to be available the other candidates from neighbouring village can be considered. Though the 4th respondent is away from the same village, the 4th respondent is appointed erroneously. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the 4th respondent did very well in the interview and based on merits only the 4th respondent was appointed. More over, the 4th respondent is not residing far away from the said Village. He further submitted that the distance cannot be taken into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consideration as the 4th respondent is found to be more suitable candidate than others. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent is residing within 1 KM from Vasanthanadai. He further submitted that she did very well in the interview and therefore she was rightly appointed. 5. Heard the parties and perused the records. Though it is submitted by the 4th respondent as well as the 2nd respondent namely the Block Development Officer that the 4th respondent is residing within 1 KM away from the subject village, the records would show that Vasanthanadai in which the 4th respondent is alleged to be residing her father-in-law's place and her permanent resident of Iraivankadu, Annaikattu Pachayat which is about 7 Kms away from the subject Village. The interview card sent to the 4th respondent dated 21.7.2009 was also addressed to the 4th respondent's address at Iraivankadu, Annaikattu Panchayat. Though the learned counsel for the 4th respondent relied upon the Ration Card to show that she is residing in Vasanthanadai, a close perusal of the said document would reveal that the Ration Card was changed to Vasanthanadai address only on 23.2.2009 whereas the applications were called for much earlier and interview was conducted on 19.1.2009. Therefore, it is clear that expecting the appointment only, fourth respondent's Ration Card was changed subsequently on 23.2.2009. More over, the address given in the applications alone are material for appointment and the subsequent change of address will not confer any benefit on the 4th respondent. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent in paragraph 7, it is stated that 4th respondent's husband is Government employee. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that only based on merit the 4th respondent was selected, there is nothing on record to show that the 4th respondent did very well in interview than others. 7. The petitioner Mrs.R.Malliga in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 is a physically handicapped person. As per the Notification issued by the District Collector dated 23.12.2008, the physically handicapped / widow should be given preference in the appointment. It is stated as follows: " nkw;go gjtpfSf;fhd tpz;zg;gj;Jld;. taJ. fy;tpj;jFjp. rhjp. rK:fepiy (CdKw;nwhh;/tpjit). ,Ug;gplk; Mfpatw;wpw;fhd b$uhf;!; rhd;Wfs; ,izf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ Vw;fdnt tpz;zg;gk; bfhLj;jpUe;jhYk; midj;J rhd;wpjH;fSld; g[jpajhf tpz;zg;gk; tpsk;gu ehSf;F gpd;dh; Fwpg;gpl;l njjpf;Fs; tpz;zg;gpf;f ntz;Lk;/ jFjpahd egh;fs; mjpfk; , Ug;gpd; tpjitfs; kw;Wk; fztdhy; iftplg;gl;nlhh;f;F Kd;Dhpik tH';fg;gLk;/ ,jw;fhd rhd;wpjH; tUtha;j;JiwapypUe;J bgw;W ,izf;fg;gl ntz;Lk;/ neh;Kf njh;[t[f;F tUk;nghJ mry; rhd;wpjH;fs; fhz;gpf;f ntz;Lk; " The disability certificate produced by the petitioner in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 namely Mrs. R.Malliga would show that she is a physically handicapped person with 60% disability as she is suffering from Post Polio Paralysis. The above Certificate would prove that Mrs. R.Malliga is a physically handicapped person and therefore she should https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been given preference. Considering the disability certificate and also considering the fact that she is residing in the same Village namely Vasanthanadai to which place the recruitment took place. Mrs. Malliga, petitioner in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 is entitled to the post of Noon Meal Organizer. 8. Mr. R.Margabandhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.19160 of 2009 submits that the petitioner R.Malliga in W.P.No. 19485 of 2009 is residing in different village called Okkanapuram and therefore he submits that fourth respondent's appointment is illegal and the petitioner in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 cannot be appointed in that place. The Nativity Certificate dated 18.7.2007 was issued by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar would amply prove that Mrs. R.Malliga is residing at Vasanthanadai. 9. In view of the fact that the 4th respondent appointment is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders for appointing the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19485 of 2009 as Noon Meal Organizer in Vasanthanadai village in the light of the order passed by this Court. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition No.19485 of 2009 is allowed and W.P.No.19160 of 2009 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kr. To 1.The District Collector, Vellore District. 2.The Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Anaicut, Vellore District. 3.The Personal Assistant to Collector of Vellore, Noon Meal Scheme, Collector's Office, Vellore. 1 cc to Mr.P.Subba Reddy, Advocate, Sr.No.69569 1 cc to Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Advocate, Sr.No.69978 1 cc to M/s.R.Margabandhu, Advocate, Sr.No.69855 1 cc to Mr.Madhavan, Advocate, Sr.No.69753 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.69906, 69905 W.P.Nos. 19160 and 19485 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 1 of 2009 NM {CO} TP/19.12.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/