A GNANMANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent through his proceedings in Na.Ka.A1/11030-2008 dated 29.01.2009 and quash the same and subsequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after due verification of the certificates of the petitioner, she was appointed as Village Assistant, at Pudukiramam, Nanguneri Taluk in Tirunelveli District, vide proceedings of the third respondent dated 21.09.2007. While so, on 29.01.2009, the second respondent passed the impugned order stating that she was wrongly appointed as Village assistant at the age of 17 " years and as per the Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Special Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule') the required age for the appointment of the said post is 21. Therefore, she was terminated from the service on the ground that she did not have the minimum age prescribed for the post of Village Assistant. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that as per the Rule, the petitioner is ineligible for the appointment of the Village Assistant, since she had not attained the minimum age as prescribed for the post of Village Assistant. He would further submit that the officials have committed mistake at the time of appointing the petitioner and she cannot claim any right over the mistake committed by the officials. Therefore, the present impugned order has been passed in accordance with the Rule which does not call for interference by this Court, as there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Apart from that, he also submits that the third respondent Tahsildar is the appointing authority and the second respondent is the appellate authority and panel approving authority, who is competent to issue a termination order of an irregular appointment. Hence, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. I have carefully considered the rival submissions on either side and the relevant rules and perused the materials available on record.