M RAJESWARI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTORMASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Cook in the noon meal centre situated in the Government High School, Pattamputhur, Virudhunagar Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District within a stipulated time.

(2.) The petitioner avers that she had submitted her application on 28.05.2012 for the vacant post of Cook in the Government High School, Pattamputtur, Virudhunagar Panchayat union, Virudhunagar District. She avers that there were three vacant posts of 2 cooks and one assistant in the said school. The respondents 1 & 2 had conducted interview on 24.06.2012 at the Office of the District Collector. The petitioner was declared successful in the interview and appointment order was issued to her by the appointing authority on 27.06.2012 by post. The second respondent had issued the appointment order directing the petitioner to join duty within 7 days of the receipt of the appointment order. The speed post letter containing the appointment order was received by the petitioner on 02.07.2012. Upon receipt of the appointment order through post, the petitioner had gone to the school on the next day, ie., on 03.07.2012 to join duty. To her shock, the school authorities informed the petitioner that one Smt.Jegadeswari had joined as cook. They asked the petitioner to obtain necessary clarification from the respondents 1 & 2 in respect of her appointment order. In effect, they prevented the petitioner from joining duty and refused to honour the appointment order issued by the appointing authority.

(3.) The petitioner avers that one of the posts of cook in the Noon meal centre situated in the said school is still vacant. She avers that she is fully qualified for the job and had successfully cleared the interview. The appointment order was also received by the petitioner by post. And she had presented her for duty on time only to be sent back by the school authorities. She had sought an injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3 from appointing any person to that second post lying vacant according to her. She fears that appointing any other person to that post will cause irreparable loss and injury to her.