M. SENTHIL ARUMUGAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this writ petition is in respect of appointment of the fourth respondent herein as Village Panchayat Clerk of Aanaikulam Village Panchayat, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. One Mr. Yovan was previously working as Village Panchayat Clerk of the said Panchayat. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2010. As against the said vacancy, the Panchayat decided to appoint a competent person as Village Panchayat Clerk. In this regard, the third respondent ? Panchayat called for applications from eligible candidates. As many as eleven candidates submitted their applications. Those applications were scrutinised by the Appointment Committee constituted by the Panchayat on 26.04.2010. The said Committee processed all those applications and finally made a recommendation on 29.04.2010 recommending to appoint the fourth respondent as Village Panchayat Clerk. Based on the same, the Village Panchayat passed a Resolution on 30.04.2010 appointing the fourth respondent as Village Panchayat Clerk. Aggrieved over the said appointment of the fourth respondent, the petitioners herein have come up with this writ petition, claiming that they have got better marks.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents 2, 3 and 4. I have also perused the records carefully.

(3.) REFERRING to the said Rule, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the case on hand, the so -called Appointments Committee constituted by the Village Panchayat was not validly constituted. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Rule 4, it is mandatory that there shall be three members in the Committee including the President of the Village Panchayat, but in the case on hand, the Committee was not constituted on annual basis, as required under Rule 4. Only there were two members by name Mohammed Aboobacker and Velammal as Appointments Committee members. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Committee was not validly constituted.