P. TAMILSELVI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the file of the 1st respondent herein in Na.Ka. En.10574/2008 sa.vu.thi -1-8 dtd. 12/9/2009 issued to the fourth respondent, quash the same and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Kallayee Village, Thriuvannamalai District.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to Most Backward Community (Vanniyar) and she has studied upto XII standard. A news item was published in "Dinamathi" dtd. 18/12/2008 stating that qualified candidates can apply for the post of Noon Meal Organiser and Assistant in the Noon Meal Centres in Thiruvannamalai District. By notification dtd. 19/12/2008, suitable candidates were called for, for the post of Noon Meal Organiser and one of the eligibility criteria is that the candidate should reside in the same village in which the Noon Meal Centre is situated. As the petitioner was residing at Kallayee Village, she applied with necessary documents and she was called for an interview on 31/12/2008. She attended the interview on 12/1/2009. She was successful in the interview and selection list dtd. 4/2/2009 was published and she was awaiting appointment order. The writ petitioner was informed that orders will be issued by the Hon'ble Minister for Food Supplies on 12/9/2009 in the office of the Collector. A photograph depicting the petitioner receiving the orders from the Hon'ble Minister along with other officials was also published in " Dhinamathi" on 30/9/2009. After receipt of the order, the petitioner was told that there was some typographical error in the order and the same has got to be corrected and the order copy was taken back from her. To the shock of the petitioner, instead of giving the appointment to the writ petitioner, namely. P. Tamilselvi, one S. Tamilselvi, who is the fourth respondent herein, was appointed in the place of the petitioner. It is stated that the order was issued purporting to be issued by the Collector, Thiruvannamalai, but, no order of cancellation was issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is not a qualified person. The petitioner would state that the order of cancellation was not served on her. According to the petitioner, though she is a resident of the same village, without giving appointment to her, the fourth respondent has been issued with the appointment order.

(3.) Notice has been served on all the respondents, including the fourth respondent.