Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM
Packiyathai Middle School - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.17473 of 1997
Decided On : 10 November 2003
Certiorarified Mandamus - Appointment Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.918 Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 3.11.1989 - The court discussed the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.918 and highlighted the discretion of the management in the selection process, subject to approval by the Collector. The court also emphasized that administrative circulars cannot override statutory Government Orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an aided minority school, contested the appointment of an 'Assistant to Cook' based on a Government Order. The management had sent a panel of names for approval, but the appointment was made without following the prescribed procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment violated the Government Order and ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that administrative circulars cannot override statutory Government Orders.
Issues: Dispute over the appointment process for 'Assistant to Cook' in an aided minority school, violation of Government Order, and the validity of administrative circulars.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment process should adhere to the provisions of the Government Order, emphasizing the discretion of the management in the selection process, subject to approval by the Collector. The court also emphasized that administrative circulars cannot override statutory Government Orders.
Final Decision: The writ petition was ordered in favor of the petitioner, and the subsequent Government Order was to be considered for any future appointments.
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 & 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.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.
5. While learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on G.O.Ms.No.918 Backward Classes Welfare
Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 3.11.1989, learned counsel for the respondents refers to the Circular of the Secretary of the Government dated 7.12.1998 issued in the context of filling up of the vacancies, in particular, paragraph one, which is as follows:
xU';fpide;j FHe;ijfs; tsu;r;rp jpl;lk; jkpH;ehL xU';fpide;j Cl;lr;rj;Jj; jpl;lk; kw;Wk; gs;sp rj;Jdt[ ika';fspy; mikg;ghsu;fs; gspahsu;fs; kw;Wk; cjtpahsu;fs; gzpapl';fspy; cs;s fhypapl';fis epug;g g[jpa egu;fis neuoj; nju;t[ bra;tjw;Fg; gjpyhf xt;bthU khtl;lj;jpYk; cs;s FHe;ijfs; epiyika[k m';fd;tho ikak; kw;Wk; cjptahsu;fisj; jpl;l thupahd ghFghL ghu;f;fhk;s; mtu;fspd; gzp gpupt[thupahd gl;oay; jahupj;J mg;gl;oaypy; cs;s cgupg; gziahsu;fis cjtpahsu;fis kW epakdk; bra;a fhspapl';fis epwg;g ntz;Lk;/ mt;thW bra;a[k;nghJ ,sepisapy; cs;stu;fisna Kjypy; khWjy; bra;a ntz;Kk;/
6. Based on the aforesaid instructions, learned counsel for the respondents contends that priority has to be given to the list of employees who have already been selected and who have been found as surplus. The impugned appointment has been made only in terms of the said instructions.
7. I have considered the submissions of the both sides.
8. As regards the impugned appointment, G.O.Ms.No.918 Backward Classes Welfare Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department dated 3.11.1989 clause (f) of paragraph 7, is as follows:
"(f) Appointment to the post of Noon Meal Orga
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
