INDIRA GANDHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUDDALORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners registered their names in the Employment Exchange, Cuddalore District, on various dates. At the time of registration, all of them have failed in 10th Standard. While so, the Government issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.787, Revenue Department, dated 06.12.2006 to fill up 3674 vacancies of Village Assistants through Employment Exchange and as per the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.521, Revenue Department, dated 17.06.1998. The Tahsildar is the appointing authority for the post of Village Assistant. Out of 3674 vacancies, 25 vacancies were meant for Thittakudi Taluk. The Tahsildar, Thittakudi sought the list of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange. Accordingly, the Employment Exchange sent the list of 108 candidates. Based on the list, interview was fixed on some dates. But the interview did not take place on those days. Finally, the interview took place on 09.09.2010. Totally 69 candidates attended the interview and the petitioners in these writ petitions were among them. Out of 69 candidates, 8 candidates were selected and 17 vacancies are remaining vacant. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. Since the petitioners were not selected, they have filed these writ petitions seeking for a direction to consider them for appointment to the post of Village Assistant based on the interview that took place on 09.09.2010.

(2.) THE Tahsildar, Thittakudi has filed counter affidavits. The only reason given in the counter affidavits for not considering the petitioners is that some of the petitioners passed 10th Standard and some of them passed +2 and therefore, they were not considered for the post of Village Assistant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointment to the post of Village Assistant is based on the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.521, Revenue Department, dated 17.06.1998. Para 5 in G.O.Ms.No.521 prescribes educational qualification and as per which, the minimum educational qualification was 5th Standard and no maximum educational qualification was prescribed in the said G.O. But the respondents have stated that the maximum educational qualification was fail in 10th Standard. Hence, the contention of the respondents is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.521. It is further submitted that when the petitioners registered their names in the Employment Exchange, all of them have failed in 10th Standard and subsequently, some of them passed in 10th Standard and some of them passed in +2. When the Government Order does not prescribe any maximum educational qualification, the respondents are not justified in not considering the petitioners for the post of Village Assistant.