1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.6388 of 2011 and Cont.P.(MD)No.563 of 2011 L.Ramachandran ... Petitioner in both W.P. & Cont.P. vs. WP(MD)No.6388 of 2011 : 1.The District Collector, The District Collector Office, Dindigul District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. 3.The Panchayat President, Vilpatti Panchayat Union, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents Cont.P.(MD) 563 of 2011 : 4.Nagarajan, The District Collector, The District Collector Office, Dindigul District. 5.Jeyaprakash The Block Development Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. 6.Selvaraj, The Panchayat President, Vilpatti Panchayat Union, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District .. Respondents PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.6388 of 2011:Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order, dated 06.06.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal. Prayer in Cont.P(MD)No.563 of 2011: Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order dated 20.06.2011 in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 in W.P.(MD) No.6388 of 2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For 2nd Respondent : Mr.S.Kumar For 1st Respondent :Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader. (In both W.P and Cont.P) COMMON ORDER The petitioner has filed the writ petition No.6388 of 2011 challenging an order dated 06.06.2011 passed by the Block Development Officer, Kodaikanal wherein by which his earlier appointment was cancelled. The order cancelling his appointment is based upon the direction issued by the District Collector, Dindigul pursuant to the exercise of power under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act is under challenge. 2.The writ petition was admitted on 20.06.2011. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted exparte interim stay of the order. Aggrieved by the grant of interim stay, the Block Development Officer, Kodaikanal has filed a vacate stay petition in in M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2011. Even before the vacate stay application filed, the petitioner filed a contempt petition No.563 of 2011 to punish the District Collector, Dindigul and the other respondents namely, the Block Development Officer and the Pancahayat President for having wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court, dated 20.06.2011. 3.When the contempt petition came up before this Court on 22.09.2011, this Court directed the main writ petition to be posted along with the contempt petition. Accordingly, the main writ petition as well as the vacate stay petition were listed together. 4.In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent , it was stated that the earlier panchayat clerk of the Vilpatti Panchayat as well as the President of Panchayat committed irregularities in the matter of income and expenditure of the panchayat and disciplinary action was initiated against the then President in terms of Section 205 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and also charges framed against panchayat assistant. In order to enquire into the said misconduct by the power vested on him under G.O.Ms.No.175/RD & PR Department, dated 05.12.2006, the then Panchayat Assistant was transferred under the orders of the District Collector to someother panchayat namely Old Batlagundu Panchayat vide proceedings, dated 23.03.2010. In the same proceeding, the District Collector informed the Panchayat that as a stop gap arrangement, the panchayat assistant from Adukkam Panchayat will be made as additional charge of the panchayat. The said panchayat assistant one Pitchai had also taken as additional charge on 29.03.2011. In the meanwhile, the panchayat president who has already facing charge under Section 205 whose tenure has also come to end by the same year appointed the petitioner on his own vide order dated 28.05.2011. It was stated by him that the panchayat convening a special meeting on 27.05.2011 by way of a resolution No.1/2011-2012. It was decided to fill up the post of panchayat assistant and accordingly, the applications were called for. The method in which the post was advertised not mentioned in the order. But nevertheless, the third respondent appointed the petitioner as panchayat assistant under time scale of pay. The order also does not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 disclose as to the number of persons who applied for the said post and the nature of advertisement made. In any event, the petitioner's claim is based upon the order dated 28.05.2011 and he claims that he is working pursuant to the said order. 5.It transpires that the matter was informed to the District Collector who is also the Inspector of Panchayats by the third respondent Panchayat President on 30.05.2011. Thereafter, the District Collector in exercise of suo motu power under Section 202 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act took exception to the said appointment and also held that when he has already given orders that till enquiry against the Silvestar, the panchayat assistant facing charges is completed and there has been stop gap arrangement, the panchayat assistant of Adukkam Panchayat being additional in charge of the panchayat, there was no question of panchayat passing a resolution pursuant to which the petitioner can be appointed as panchayat assistant. Therefore, by virtue of the power under Section 202, he cancelled the resolution passed by the panchayat as well as the order of appointment given by the third respondent in favour of the writ petitioner. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order passed by the District Collector and he has only challenged the consequential direction issued by the Block Development Officer, Kodaikanal. 6.In any event, the petitioner's appointment hardly lasted more than a week and the third respondent who was facing charges along with the panchayat assistant, he has no right to make any appointment basing his duties under panchayat resolution. The District Collector is entitled to cancel such orders if he finds there is any irregularity or illegality in the order of appointment. Since the petitioner do not hold any post under a constituted service of the Government, the post itself is covered by the Government Order referred to above, it is open to the District Collector to exercise supervisory power over the action of the panchayat. It must be noted that the previous incumbent to the post namely Silvestar has not vacated the post and he continues to hold the post and only as stop gap arrangement, he has been sent to some other panchayat. Probably after the enquiry, if he is found innocent, he may revert back to the same. Then there is no clear vacancy. When there is a direction by the District Collector not to fill up the post of panchayat assistant and to man the panchayat with the assistance of Adukkam panchayat assisant who was directed to hold the post as additional in charge of the panchayat, there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondents. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. 7.In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, there is no contempt made out. Hence the contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The District Collector, The District Collector Office, Dindigul District. 2.The Block Development Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. 3.The Panchayat President, Vilpatti Panchayat Union, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. +1CC TO MR.M.AJMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE SR : 45512 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 45368 Sms SR : 09.01.2012 : 4p/6c Common Order made in W.P.(MD)No.6388 of 2011 and Cont.P.(MD)No.563 of 2011 22.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/