The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consideration of residence under Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Village Servant Service Rules, 1980 is a preference and not a mandatory eligibility condition. The court emphasized that appointments should be based on eligibility and qualifications, and the consideration of residence should not be the sole ground for rejection.

JUDGMENT :

A.P. SAHI, C.J.:— These intra-court appeals have been preferred by a candidate who came to be selected and appointed as Grama Kavalar (Village Assistant) for T. Andipatti Village, Tirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. The appointment was upset by the authorities and confirmed by the learned Single Judge, hence these appeals.

2. On 30.6.1992, the post of Village Assistant fell vacant and the Tahsildar, Tirumangalam Taluk, notified the said vacancy announcing that the last date for submission of applications would be 28.7.1992. The appellant and the fourth respondent had applied and their interview was conducted on 5.8.1992. The Tahsildar, on an assessment of the respective candidatures and the qualifications possessed, finally selected and appointed the appellant against the post vide order dated 26.8.1992.

3. Aggrieved, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who, vide order dated 13.1.1993, allowed the same on the ground that the status of residence as provided for in Rule 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Village Servant Service Rules, 1980 (for brevity, “the 1980 Rules”) appear to have been overlooked and, therefore, remitted the matter before the Tahsildar for fresh consideration.

4. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the District Revenue Officer, who, vide order dated 7.5.1993, upheld the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Original Application No. 3161 of 1993 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal along with a request for stay.

6. It is evident from the order of the District Revenue Officer dated 7.5.1993 that during this period of litigation, the appellant continued to function on the post in question. The Administrative Tribunal passed an interim order on 3.6.1993 staying the operation of the orders passed against the appellant. The said interim order came to be confirmed and extended until further orders on 21.6.1993.

7. The fourth respondent put up a contest urging that the fourth respondent had already an experience of three months of working as a temporary Grama Kavalar and that it was only on the physical appearance of the appellant that the Tahsildar considered him to be a better candidate. He also urged that the authorities have found, after going through the records and on enquiry, that the appellant was not a resident of Karisalpatti Village, but a resident of Thayaneri Village, which is a hamlet of Melakottai Village and, therefore, the appellant not being a resident of Andipatti Village, he could not have been appointed. This basic requirement was not possessed by the appellant and, therefore, he was totally ineligible for being considered for appointment.

8. The Original Application before the Tribunal stood transferred to the High Court after the Tribunal became nonfunctional and the same stood converted as W.P. No. 14290 of 2006. The matter was considered long thereafter, and on 17.4.2009, a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in absentia, as the learned counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions. Relying on paragraphs (9) and (10) of the reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal, which narrated the aforesaid stated deficiencies about the appellant not being a resident of the village, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

9. On the dismissal of the writ petition, it appears that the said order was finally brought to the notice of the Tahsildar, who passed an order on 27.7.2009 relieving the appellant from service by dismissal from the post of Village Assistant.

10. It appears that on the receipt of this order the appellant immediately approached this Court by filing Review Application No. 146 of 2009 with an application for delay condonation. The review application was dismissed by a detailed judgment holding that since there is no error apparent on the face of record, the review application could not be entertained. The learned Single Judge, however, re