LALITHA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ Petitioner challenges the appointment of the fifth Respondent as Noon-Meal Organizer at Melvanniyanur Village in preference to herself only on the ground of proximity of residence.

(2.) It is well settled position that the appointment for the said post, which is a public employment, cannot be based on the residence of the candidate. The issue regarding preference based on the village was already considered by this Court in the decision in P. Vasantha and Ors. v. The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul and Ors.,2007 6 MadLJ 402, wherein it is held that giving of such preference based on residence is in violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution. In paragraphs 17 and 18 of that judgment, it is held thus:

(3.) The said order was approved by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1707 of 2009 by the Division Bench (HLG, CJ and NPVJ) by judgment dated 1.12.2009. Following the said decisions, a Division Bench (NPVJ & RPSJ) of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No. 966 of 2010 dated 2.3.2011 set aside the impugned order therein and held that the action of the Respondents therein in selecting the candidates on the basis of residential parameter, without having any other distinguishing factor is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India and remitted the matter for fresh selection.