M. GOMATHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NAGAPATTINAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As it appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the writ petitioner along with some others including the respondent No.5, were the candidates for selection to the post of Village Assistant of Kilvelur Village. Accordingly, after personal interview of the candidates by the fourth respondent vide Proceeding Na.Ka.No.5485/2016/A2/dated 02.06.2017 the fifth respondent was selected and consequently given the order of appointment and he joined. Aggrieved by such selection of the fifth respondent to be illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as according to the petitioner the fifth respondent was not qualified to be appointed as he was having no eligibility being an under aged candidate and also other disqualification prescribed in Village Assisant Special Rules, preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent. So also three other unsuccessful candidates also filed appeal challenging such selection of the fifth respondent. The appellate authority after scrutinising the record, held the fifth respondent to be unqualified/ineligible for appointment as he was an under aged person being below 21 years of age on the crucial date i.e. 01.07.2016 cancelled his appointment. So also rejected the appeals of two others as one of them was over aged and another one did not participate in the selection process and directed the fourth respondent to appoint a suitable person. Accordingly the fifth respondent appointment was cancelled and petitioner was appointed by the fourth respondent. Challenging such order of the 3rd respondent, the fifth respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent in such appeal set aside the order passed by the third respondent vide order dated 25.04.2018 on the ground that the same is suffering from the vice of non observance of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, a salutory principle of natural justice and consequentially held the petitioner's appointment be cancelled and the fifth respondent be appointed and enquiry be made giving opportunity to the persons affected and to proceed against officials who are responsible for the lapses. The petitioner came to challenge the same in W.P.No.11549 of 2018 wherein notice has been issued. Thereafter, consequential order cancelling his appointment having been issued by the fourth respondent, he has filed this writ petition challenging the same with a prayer to quash such order of the fourth respondent and allow him to continue to function as Village Assistant pursuant to the order of appointment. The aforesaid facts are undisputed as revealed from record.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent being an ineligible candidate inasmuch as he was under aged one his appointment was illegal and as such rightly cancelled in the appeal filed and the third respondent rightly directed the fourth respondent to appoint a suitable person to the post and accordingly when the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the said order in the appeal, the same as such should not have been interfered with by the second respondent in the appeal of fifth respondent, so also the fifth respondent should not have been directed to be reinstated in the post especially when he is admittedly, an ineligible candidate being an under aged one.

(3.) In the counter/reply affidavit, the fifth respondent disputing the fact that he was ineligible being under aged, replied that he was eligible inasmuch as he was more than 18 years on the date of his appointment 02.06.2017, which is the minimum age of the candidates required for being considered to be appointed as Village Assistant and as such there was no ground to question his appointment by the petitioner, who was also over aged by the said date being more than 34 years of age. Furthermore, the third respondent having also ordered a detailed enquiry on such appointment, petitioner should not have filed the writ petition challenging such order and also the consequential order of the fourth respondent.