1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.739 of 2011 against W.P(MD)No.3043 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 and Caveat (MD)No.1328 of 2011 K.Vanitha ... Appellant/3rd Respondent Vs. 1.Muthulakshmi ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Child Welfare Officer, Integrated Child Welfare Scheme, Madurai. ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer: The Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3043 of 2011. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.3043 of 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to order passed by the first respondent by his proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.1821/A1/2010 dated 07.02.2011 and quash the same and directing the first respondent to issue appointment order appointing the petitioner as Anganwadi Employee at Thatchanendal Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. For Appellant : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondents : Mr.G.Karnan for R1 Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.G.P. for R2 and R3 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.3043 of 2011 dated 29.06.2011, by which, the order impugned dated 07.02.2011 has been set aside by the learned Single Judge and consequently, the Writ petition was allowed directing the 2nd respondent herein to issue appointment order to the Writ petitioner/1st respondent herein. 2.Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that while setting aside the impugned order dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 07.02.2011passed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought not have issued the consequential mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent herein to appoint the 1st respondent herein. 3.This Court finds considerable force in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4.When the Writ petition was allowed on the ground that the respondent No.1 has in fact produced the residential certificate, which is stated to be in-correct, in all fairness, a direction ought to have been issued to the 2nd respondent herein to consider the case of the appellant as well as the 1st respondent herein on merits and in accordance with law for the concerned post. 5.Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to set aside insofar as issuing a direction to the 2nd respondent to give appointment order to the 1st respondent herein. Accordingly, while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge insofar as setting aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent, a consequential direction is issued to the 2nd respondent/District Collector, Madurai to consider the case of the appellant as well as the respondent No.1 on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that till final orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, the appellant shall not be disturbed, since she is stated to hold the said post as on today. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2. The Child Welfare Officer, Integrated Child Welfare Scheme, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate SR.No.27122 +1cc to The Special Government Pleader SR.No.26988 W.A.(MD)No.739 of 2011 against WP(MD)No.3043 of 2011 09.08.2011 nbj PA/25.08.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/