IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 23.2.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.4609 of 2007 A.Subramanian. ... Applicant -Vs.- 1.The District Collector, Erode District. 2.The Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Uthukuli, Erode District. ... Respondents Original Application No.7404 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for the records of the first respondent in Proceeding RC No.37741/99/Pa.E1 dated 25.11.99 and the order of the second respondent in proceeding RC No.4519/98/A5 dated 30.11.99, quash the same and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the applicant as Jeep Driver with effect from 16.3.99 with all attendant and monetary benefits. Since the Tamilnadu Appellate Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. For petitioner : Mr.Kandan for M/s.Muthmani Doraisamy For respondents : Mr.S.Sivashanmugham, Government Advocate ----- O R D E R Original Application No.7404 of 1999 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying to call for the records of the first respondent in Proceeding RC No.37741/99/Pa.E1 dated 25.11.99 and the order of the second respondent in proceeding RC No.4519/98/A5 dated 30.11.99, quash the same and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the applicant as Jeep Driver with effect from 16.3.99 with all attendant and monetary benefits. Since the Tamilnadu Appellate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tribunal was abolished, the O.A. was received by transfer and numbered as Writ Petition. 2. The second respondent Uthukuli Panchayat Union, Erode District was a need of a Jeep Driver and based on a resolution of the council, names of probable candidates were called for from the Employment Exchange. Several names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange and interview to the post of Jeep Driver was held on 15.3.1999 in the Panchayat Union Office, Uthukuli. 15 candidates attended the interview. The interview was conducted by the Appointment Committee constituted as per G.O.No.336 Rural Development Department dated 26.11.1997. It comprised of the Chairman, Panchayat Union Council, one Panchayat Union Councillor and the Panchayat Union Commissioner as the Secretary of the Committee. The Panchayat Union Chairman is the Chairman of the Appointment Committee. The Appointment Committee short listed three candidates and selected the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as additional Jeep Driver in proceedings Ref.No.4519/98/A6 dated 16.3.1999 of the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Uthukuli. The said selection and appointment was found to be unreasonable to some of the members of the Panchayat Union. Therefore, the Vice-chairman and other members of the Panchayat Union preferred a complaint to the District Collector on the above said selection and appointment. 3. The District Collector went into the matter and came to conclusion that there are certain errors in the proceedings of the Appointment Committee. According to the District Collector, the Commissioner of Panchayat Union has recorded the selection proceedings whereas such power is given to the Chairman of the Committee alone. In the record of proceedings, there is no details as to why the merits of other candidates have not been considered and recorded. In respect of other persons some unknown person has recorded the proceedings and the Chairman of the Committee has simply signed below the recording. According to the Collector, the Chairman of the Appointment Committee has not acted independently to select the suitable candidate. On this ground, the selection was found to be at fault and the impugned proceedings was passed cancelling the appointment. Based on the order of the District Collector, the second respondent Commissioner, Panchayat Union passed the proceedings removing the petitioner from service. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner served for more than 8 months, at the time of filing the Original Application in the year 1999 challenging the impugned proceeding. The Tribunal granted interim stay of the impugned proceedings and the petitioner continues to be in the said post. 5. The District Collector has filed a reply reiterating the stand taken in the impugned proceedings. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. The second respondent, the Commissioner of Panchayat Union has filed reply affidavit stating that the procedures were followed as per law and the selection and appointment is in order. 7. The reasoning of the District Collector that the Chairman of the Committee did not act independently, but has simply signed in the proceeding cannot be a proper reason to interfere with the selection proceedings. I am unable to accept such a stand of the Collector for the simple reason that the Appointment Committee consisting of three members, has to take a collective decision and not independently. In this case, all the three members after considering the merits of the rival candidates and based on the need of the Department selected the petitioner for appointment to the said post. No specified rule has been pointed out to state that the merits and demerits of each and every candidates should be recorded before selecting a particular candidate. The procedure adopted by the Appointment Committee should not be ordinarily found fault with, unless it is established that a specified rule or provision of law has been breached in the selection process. 8. In this case, even on merits, there is no material to show that the petitioner did not have the requisite educational qualification or experience to drive the motor vehicle. The non selection of one or other candidate based on their comparative merit cannot be a reason for setting aside the selection of the petitioner. The District Collector found fault with the proceedings of the Appointment Committee stating that the Appointment Committee has selected the candidate because he hails from the very same area, viz., Uthukuli. This stand of the Collector appears to be a misconceived as in the case of appointment of Drivers, it is always desirable that a person of the same locality is considered subject to the condition that he has the educational qualification and driving experience as may be prescribed. 9. In this case, none of the rival candidates have complained. It appears that the complaint is within the Panchayat Union against the members of the Committee, but not on the individual selected. In the impugned proceedings of the Collector, no specific rule has been shown to have been violated by the Appointment Committee. The second respondent has taken a different view from that of the District Collector stating that the appointment is in order and in accordance with law. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept the finding of the District Collector cancelling the appointment of the petitioner which is hyper technical and based on conjectures and surmises. The collective decision of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appointment Committee should be given more credence. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. In so far as the regularisation is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to work out his remedy in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ts Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Erode District. 2.The Commissioner of Panchayat Union, Uthukuli, Erode District. + 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.12337 + 1 cc to M/s. Muthumani Doraisami, Advocate SR No.11777 AKR(CO) SR/15.3.2010 Order in W.P.No.4609 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/