M JEYAMANI Vs. PERSONAL ASSISTANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a resident of S. Alangulam Village under Chokkalingapuram village Panchayat. The second respondent called for applications from eligible persons to appoint an Assistant Cook at S. Alampatti Village. The petitioner claims that even prior to the said advertisement, he had submitted her application seeking appointment for the said post. The third respondent was one of the applicants. Interview was held on 16. 04. 2007. But the petitioner was not called. It is her grievance that few more applicants who had submitted their applications were also not called for interview. However, the second respondent by his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 20657/07/r. c. jp. 2/ dated 31. 08. 2007 has appointed the third respondent as an Assistant Cook in the existing vacancy. The petitioner challenges the same in this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner would be that the 3rd respondent was a member of the same Village Panchayat until 07. 09. 2007 and thus the appointment order made in her favour on 31. 08. 2007 is illegal. The learned counsel would rely on Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu panchayat Act to substantiate his contention.