1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal(MD)No.1554 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 J.Kulandai Packiam ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Planning Officer, Combined Child Health Development, Sanarpatti Taluk, Dindigul District-624 403. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 11.10.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.11531 of 2010. Prayer in WP(MD)No.11531 of 2010 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.1965/09/A1 dated 28.07.2010 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi worker in any one of the vacancy at Sanaarpatti Taluk, Dindigul District. For Appellant : Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Chandrasekaran, Government Advocate. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N.BASHA,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the writ court, dated 11.10.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.11531 of 2010, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the 1st respondent rejecting the representation of the appellant preferred for the relief of seeking appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker. 2.Mr.S.Chandrasekaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2009 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by giving liberty to the appellant to make a comprehensive representation and with a further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 direction to the District Collector, the 1st respondent herein, to consider the same within a stipulated time. It is contended that such a comprehensive representation made by the appellant was dismissed by the District Collector, as per the order impugned in the writ petition, on 28.07.2010 and, as such, against the same the appellant preferred another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11531 of 2010. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ court has dismissed the said writ petition mainly on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent stating that the said G.O. is not applicable in respect of the claim made by the appellant, inspite of application of G.O.Ms.No.191, Rural Development, dated 07.09.1998, to the case of the appellant, It is contended that the said G.O. was misread by the respondents and they have not placed the correct picture before the writ court. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.191, Rural Development, dated 07.09.1998. It is contended that in view of the same, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the event of giving liberty to the appellant to make a fresh representation to the 1st respondent seeking the relief of appointment as an Anganwadi worker, in any one of the existing vacancies, as the appellant is not at all challenging the selection of one Eswari, as per the earlier orders. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ court, as the writ court has considered the matter on the basis of the materials available on record and on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is contended that the appellant has already exhausted her remedy, by way of preferring a comprehensive representation and the same was considered on merits by the District Collector, and as such the question of reconsidering the same does not arise. 6.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put-forward by the counsel on either side and also perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the writ court. 7.The fact remains that it is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2009 and the same was disposed of with a liberty to the appellant to prefer a comprehensive representation with a direction to the District Collector to consider the same within a stipulated time. It is seen that the District Collector has rejected the said representation preferred by the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.191, Rural Development Department, dated 07.09.1998, as the said G.O. was misread earlier by the District Collector while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that one more chance may be given to the appellant for preferring a representation, in order to highlight the benefit which she is entitled to as per G.O.Ms.No.191, Rural Development Department, dated 07.09.1998. We are of view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the event of permitting the appellant to prefer a fresh representation, setting out her claim and highlighting the benefit which she is entitled to as per the above said G.O. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.Accordingly, we permit the appellant to prefer a representation to the 1st respondent, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of receiving such a representation from the appellant, the first respondent, namely the District Collector, Dindigul District, shall consider the same, on its own merits and in the light of G.O.Ms.No.191, Rural Development Department, dated 07.09.1998, by affording an opportunity to the appellant, and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the claim of the appellant and it is for the 1st respondent to consider the same, as directed above and to pass orders. 9.With the above direction and observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Planning Officer, Combined Child Health Development, Sanarpatti Taluk, Dindigul District-624 403. +1CC TO MR.J.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE SR : 44665 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 44998 Gb SR : 05.01.2012 : 3p/5c Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1554 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:20.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/