IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.47370 of 2006 (O.A.No.4787 of 2001) M.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Executive Officer, Kilvelur Grade I Town Panchayat, Kilvelur, Thiruvarur District. 2.The District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. 3.S.Bhuvaneswari 4.Arulmozhi ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.4787 of 2001 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the first respondent Na.Ka.No.329/97/A, dated 14.5.2001 and set aside the same in so far as the respondents 3 and 4 are concerned and consequently directing the first respondent to appoint the applicant as Sweeper in the office of the first respondent with all monetary and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.K.T.P.Kuilmozhi For Respondents : Mr.V.Subbiah, Spl.G.P. for R1 Mr.Rm.Muthukumar, G.A., for R2 and R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 as Sweepers in the 1st respondent town panchayat. While four persons were appointed as Sweepers, the petitioner has chosen to question the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 alone. The only reason given in the writ petition is that the respondents 3 and 4 are sisters and therefore their appointments are illegal. 2.On the other hand, the 1st respondent filed counter affidavit stating that two permanent post of Sweeper and two consolidated pay post were vacant and the 1st respondent requested the Employment Exchange, Nagapattinam to furnish the list of eligible persons. Accordingly, the list was sent by the Employment Exchange and all the persons including the petitioner were sent interview card and the interview was held on 25.04.2001. Based on the interview the 3rd respondent and one L.Murugesan were appointed in the consolidated pay post of Sweepers, while the 4th respondent and one P.Somanathan were appointed in the regular vacancy of Sweepers. It is stated that a proper procedure was followed before appointing the respondents 3 and 4 as well as the two other persons stated above. 3.Heard both sides. 4.The only point that is urged before this Court is that respondents 3 and 4 are sisters and therefore, their appointment is illegal. When respondents 3 and 4 were selected based on the interview conducted on 25.04.2001, the same appointment could not be questioned on the ground that the respondents 3 and 4 are sisters. The petitioner has not brought to my notice any rule that prohibits the appointment of close relations to the Sweeper post even if they are selected on merit. 5.Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and hence it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Executive Officer, Kilvelur Grade I Town Panchayat, Kilvelur, Thiruvarur District. 2. The District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam. +1 CC to M/S.Veera Kathiravan, Advocate, Sr.No.65821 +1 CC to Government Pleader, Sr.No.66031 W.P.No.47370 of 2006 (O.A.No.4787 of 2001) RS(CO) MS:25/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/