R MUNIAMMAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUDDALORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward to challenge the order, dated 6.2.2010 appointing the third respondent as Cook Assistant in the Noon Meal Centre at the Panchayat Union Primary School at Kuttiyankuppam Village, Malayaperumal Agaram Panchayat, Cuddalore District.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that she is a permanent resident of Kuttiyankuppam Village, Malayaperumal Agaram Panchayat, Cuddalore District. She belonged to Most Backward community and she is a widow. Her husband died during January, 2007. When a notification was called for for the post of Cook Assistant in the Centre attached to the Panchayat Union Primary School at Kuttiyankuppam, the petitioner sent her application. THE petitioner claims that by G.O.Ms.No.203, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Department, dated 19.8.2005, the Government prescribed guidelines for filling up various posts in the noon meal centre. One such condition prescribed therein was that whenever vacancy arises in the Centre, a person qualified in the hamlet in which the Centre was located should be appointed. Only when there is no such person available, a person in the neighbouring hamlet can be selected. Even thereafter, if no qualified persons are available, then any qualified person within the radius of 10 Kms. of range can be appointed. THE said order was circulated by the District Collector vide his proceedings, dated 10.9.2005. THErefore, the petitioner states that while she is the native of the same village, the third respondent lives 4-1/2 Kms. away from the centre. Out of the 19 candidates, whose names were considered, she is the local candidate and she should have been preferred. But the appointment made in favour of the third respondent was illegal as admittedly she lives 4-1/2 Kms. away from the centre.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly contended that the Government Order must be given full play and it cannot be interpreted by this court. This court is unable to agree with the said contention. THE said G.O. has come up for consideration before this court vide its decision in P.Vasantha and others Vs. District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul and others reported in 2007 (6) MLJ 402. This Court in paragraphs 16 to 18 had observed as follows: