R DEVIMALA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THE NILGIRIS UDAGAMANDALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the third respondent"s appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the second respondent. By virtue of notification in daily newspaper "Dinakaran" dated 03.03.2010, the petitioner applied for the said post. However, contrary to the notification, the third respondent who is residing in Pondicholai Village, Cholada Mattam which is 4" kilo meters away from Adara Estate has been appointed. It is also contended as per the notification, the person who is very near to the Anganwadi Centre alone is required to be appointed. Moreover, the appointment was made after publication of G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 06.07.2010 which introduced the communal reservation in the selection process. THErefore, the entire selection has to be set aside and new publication has to be made calling for fresh application from the public for the said post.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once communal G.O has been effected on 06.07.2010, the earlier recruitment as per the notification dated 03.03.2010 has to be set aside and the recruitment should start afresh. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Kerala Vs. A. Lakshmikutty and others reported in AIR 1987, 331 BCR (1) 136 and MadanMohan Sharma & another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in CDJ 2008 SC 267 and judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in C. Govindasamy Vs. THE Principal (in charge), Government Polytechnic College, Krishnagiri and another in W.P.No.10840 of 2010. By relying upon those judgments, the learned counsel seeks for cancellation of the appointment of the third respondent and direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to recruit after following the procedure afresh.

(3.) WITH regard to the distance, this Court has already held that distance only will be preferential qualification and that cannot be a sole criteria. Therefore the said condition is also rejected.