The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of equal opportunity in public employment, the need for a level playing field for eligible candidates, and the discretion of employers to prescribe qualifications for any post, keeping in view the need and interest of an institution or establishment.

ORDER :

The reply given to the petitioner under RTI Act in proceedings dated 01.11.2018 with reference to the appointment of the 4th respondent as Panchayat Secretary in Kiliyanur Village Panchayat is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner states that she had completed Master of Arts in Tamil (M.A.) and Master of Philosophy in Tamil (M.Phil.). She got married and subsequently her husband died on 01.08.2016. The petitioner submitted an application for selection and appointment to the post of Secretary of Kiliyanur Village Panchayat, Kuthalam Panachayat Union, Nagapattinam District. The post is reserved for Schedule Caste and the preference should be given to the candidate residing at Kiliyanur Village Panchayat. Contrary to the rules regarding selection and appointment to the post of Secretary, the 4th respondent who is not residing in Kiliyanur Village was appointed as Secretary and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Service) rules, 2013. As per the Rule 5(2)(ii) “No Person shall be eligible for appointment to the post unless he/she is a resident of Village Panchayat concerned”. Based on the said Rule, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondent for selection to the post of Secretary. Contrarily, the 4th respondent who is not residing in Kiliyanur Panchayat was selected and appointed and thus, the appointment of the 4th respondent is in violation of the Rules stated above.

4. The learned Government Advocate and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Panchayat Union objected the said contention by stating that the 4th respondent was found to be more eligible in all respects and after making a thorough assessment of eligibility and qualifications, the 4th respondent was appointed. Therefore, there is no infirmity in respect of the appointment of the 4th respondent as Secretary of Kiliyanur Village Panchayat.

5. With reference to the qualification of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the petitioner is over qualified as she possessed the Master’s degree of M.A. and M.Phil., and the 4th respondent has studied only S.S.L.C., and she is also a destitute widow. The selection was made in accordance with the rules in force. In respect of the very same Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, Rule 5(2)(iii) proceeds by stating that “If no qualified and suitable candidate residing in the village panchayat concerned is available for selection for appointment to the post, eligible candidates from the adjoining Village Panchayats within the block shall be appointed”. The 4th respondent is residing within the same block viz., Kuthalam Block and therefore, she is eligible for appointment to the post of Secretary. In respect of the eligibility, the respondents have considered the following criteria which are stated in Paragraph No.9 of the counter filed by the 1st respondent, which reads as under :

The 4th respondent was selected for appointment as Village panchayat secretary of Kiliyanur village according to merit as follows:

a) the 4th respondent is Scheduled Caste Destitute Widow-Priority category whereas the petitioner is not priority candidate

(b) the age of the petitioner is only 29 whereas the age of the 4 respondent is 32 and likely to cross the age limit for future appointment.

(c) the petitioner is having master degree qualification and M. phil., whereas the 4th respondent is only S.S.L.C. having no opportunity to get job in the near future.

(d) the petitioner has registered her name in the Employment Exchange on 10.4.2018 whereas the 4th respondent has registered her name as early as on 20.6.2006.

Hence it is respectively submitted that the selection was made according to merit and ability. It is further submitted that the sele