PACKIYATHAI MIDDLE SCHOOL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 29. 10. 1997, to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to select any one of the persons from the panel of names sent by the petitioner/management so as to enable the management to appoint the said individual as "assistant to Cook".

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, it is an aided minority School. When the post of "assistant to Cook" fell vacant, the management called for applications from various persons, selected five persons and forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Panchayat Union on 6. 10. 1997. The process of filling up of the posts was governed by G. O. Ms. No. 918 Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 3. 11. 1989. If any one was to be appointed under the Noon Meal scheme, the management has to draw a panel of five names and send it to the Collector, who in turn will approve any of the names recommended by the management and communicate his approval to the management. In terms of the said Government Order, the petitioner claims to have sponsored a list of five persons on 6. 10. 1997. While they were awaiting approval and the appointment, surprisingly, the second respondent passed the impugned order transferring the third respondent who was working in Subbaraya Middle School, Chinthamani. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition contending that the impugned order was in violation of the aforesaid Government Order.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the second respondent, it is stated that, subsequent to the Government Order relied on by the petitioner, another G. O. Ms. No. 106951/a1/pension and Finance department 95-1 dated 18. 1. 1996, which is suppressed by the petitioner, has been issued and referring the G. O. , the District Collector, Tirunelveli passed an order on 5. 7. 1996. In that G. O. , it is clearly stated that with reference to the appointment to the post of "assistant to Cook", the applications have to be called for only by the second respondent and it is only the second respondent who is to conduct the interview. Thus, the third respondent is appointed as "assistant to Cook" in terms of the said order and there is no violation of the Government Order while appointing the third respondent.