1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.4044 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Nooria Primary School, rep by its Secretary A.Ariff, Sothugudi Post, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Commissioner, Ilayangudi Panchayat Union, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District. 3.Mrs.B.Boopathy .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in connection with the appointment of the third respondent made in Na.Ka.A5/1430/10, dated 7.4.2010 as noon meal organiser insofar as in the petitioner school is concerned and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the first and second respondents to appoint the noon meal organizer based on the petitioner's recommendation/representation made on 4.1.2010 in view of G.O.Ms.No.33, Social welfare and Nutritious Scheme (Sa.Thi.1) Department, dated 5.2.1993 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this court. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Spl.G.P. For RR1 and 2 ORDER This matter came to be listed before this court along with group of writ petitions. Originally the matters relating to noon meal organizers, cook and Assistant cook in private schools were grouped together and heard by the division bench, which after disposing of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8710 of 2009, dated 03.02.2011, directed the matter to be disposed of by the single Judge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The petitioner is the Nooria Primary School represented by its Secretary. In this writ petition, they have challenged an order dated 7.4.2010 passed by the second respondent, wherein and by which the third respondent was appointed as a Noon Meal Organizer in respect of the petitioner school pursuant to the order of the District Collector. The appointment was made by transfer from the R.C.Primary School, Saveriarpuram to the petitioner school at Sothukudi. 3.In the writ petition, only notice regarding admission was ordered. The contention of the petitioner was that such transfer in filling up the post by the District Collector was wrong. The third respondent is staying beyond 5 Kms. The petitioner's candidate one Nazeema Banu was not considered. 4.The very controversy leading to the right of the management to sponsor candidates and the nature of appointment came to be considered by this court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD) No.3799 of 2007, etc batch cases in R.Alagar Samy, Secretary, Sri Ambal Kala Nilayam Primary School, Mughavoor, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District Vs. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District and others. In that judgment, dated 03.11.2011, after analyzing all the previous orders in paragraph 17 it was held as follows: “17.In most of the cases, the management had come up with the plea that their nominee should be appointed. There is no claim that they have sent five names. In some of the cases, the Correspondent of the School himself sat in the selection committee, but did not make objection to the name considered and approved. Since no appointments have been made in terms of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.294 which was pending approval by the State Government and any appointment made also became subject matter of the challenge before this court, the question of considering the first parameter of the order of the division bench does not arise. In fact if a panel was not sent as required under the G.O., then the question of the District Collector selecting any one of them will not arise as held in J.Latha's case (cited supra) (2010 WLR 737). Since the procedures contemplated were not followed by the school management, there is no obligation for the District Collector to approve any of the names at this point of time. As already noted by the latest division bench that with effect from 6.7.2010, the nature of appointment itself is completely changed, the role of the school management is completely eclipsed. It is a public employment governed by Articles 14 and 16, where only by a public advertisement, names can be considered by an appointing authority.” 5.Even on the question of appointment made before 6.7.2010 held as invalid, keeping the issue void, situation without benefit accruing to any one (including the school management) was also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 considered in the said judgment. In paragraph 19, it was held as follows: “19.This is an argument made in desperation. The court will never agree to pass ineffectual orders. If the case of the school management as projected now is implemented, then it will only result in a fresh advertisement of names, in which the school management will have no say as held by the division bench which had remanded the matter once again for consideration by this court in respect of each case. After 6.7.2010, if the selections are to be made only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.142, then it is the prerogative of the State to appoint candidates in accordance with the guidelines and consistent with the principles of Articles 14 and 16. The contesting respondents were appointed only through such process even earlier. Therefore, it is unnecessary to disturb those candidates at this point of time merely because the school management want to cut the nose to spite the face. The writ court is not merely a court involved in legal interpretations, but its actions and orders must be made consistent with constitutional principles to render social justice. When the management cannot have any further say in the matter of appointment and the present appointments were made following proper appointment procedures, this court is not inclined to disturb those appointments. No rival candidates except in W.P.(MD)No.2558 of 2010 have questioned the appointments. Even in that case, the petitioner only wanted to approve the management's recommendation contrary to the procedures prescribed even under the earlier G.O.Ms.No.294. In such context, the concept of useless formality theory will apply. “ 6.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Commissioner, Ilayangudi Panchayat Union, Ilayangudi, Sivagangai District. W.P.(MD)No.4044 of 2011 03.11.2011 vvk NSV/1.12.11/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/