Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
The District Collector, Madurai & Others - Appellant
Versus
P. Ramu & Another - Respondent
W.A. (MD) Nos. 687,688,775 & 776 of 2022 & C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 5774, 5776, 6594 & 6596 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Appointment - Violation of Government Orders - G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K) Department, dated 29.10.2007 - G.O.Ms.No.101, dated 30.05.2008 - Reservation - Illegal Appointment - Roster Point - Communal Roster
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appointment of a jeep driver in the Usilampatti Panchayat Union, where the appointment process was marred by violations of government orders and communal roster regulations. The dispute arose from the appointment of Ramu as a jeep driver and the subsequent challenge by Alagumalai seeking appointment and salary benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of Alagumalai was not feasible due to his lack of educational qualifications and age limit criteria, despite belonging to the priority community. The appointment of Ramu was deemed illegal due to violations of government orders and communal roster regulations. The court set aside the previous order and dismissed the writ petitions filed by both parties.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the appointments, adherence to government orders and communal roster regulations, and the eligibility of the candidates based on educational qualifications and age limit criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointments were illegal and contrary to government orders and rules of reservation. It emphasized the importance of adhering to communal roster regulations and highlighted the inadmissibility of appointing a candidate who did not meet the educational qualifications and age limit criteria, despite belonging to the priority community.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order, dismissed the writ petitions, allowed the appeals filed by the District Collector and the Usilampatti Panchayat Union, and dismissed the appeals filed by Ramu. It also directed that the authorities should not recover the wages paid to Ramu.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in W.A. (MD) No. 687 of 2022:
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) No.21125 of 2015.
W.A. (MD) No. 688 of 2022 :
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) No.1552 of 2016.
W.A. (MD) No. 775 of 2022 :
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) No.21125 of 2015.
W.A. (MD) No. 776 of 2022 :
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order dated 16.02.2022 passed in W.P. (MD) No.1552 of 2016.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The instant four intra-Court appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.21125 of 2015 and W.P.(MD) No.1552 of 2016 and hence, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, the private parties and official parties in these cases are referred to by their names and designations respectively.
4. Alagumalai, the first respondent in W.A. (MD) Nos.688 and 776 of 2022, aggrieved by the non-implementation of the directions issued in the order dated 16.02.2022 in W.P. (MD) No.1552 of 2016 filed by him, filed a contempt petition being Cont.Petition (MD) No. 789 of 2022 against the officials. When the intra-Court appeals being W.A. (MD) Nos.687 & 688 of 2022 came up for hearing on 19.07.2022, this Court granted interim stay of the common order dated 16.02.2022. In view of the controversy regarding the continuation of the employment of Ramu (the sole respondent in W.A.(MD) No.687 of 2022 and the second respondent in W.A.(MD) No.688 and also the appellant in W.A. (MD) Nos.775 and 776 of 2022), all the four intra-Court appeals were taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
5. The facts leading to the culmination of the common order dated 16.02.2022 are as follows:
5.1. The Commissioner, Usilampatti Panchayat Union (for brevity “the Commissioner”) initially appointed one Krishnan as Jeep driver on 20.08.2008. The said Krishnan died while in service on 28.06.2014. He belonged to general category. Upon his demise, the Commissioner addressed the District Collector, Madurai, seeking permission to appoint a new jeep driver by the Appointment Committee after getting the list of registered names from the employment exchange.
5.2. The District Collectorate, Madurai, vide communication dated 07.10.2014, permitted the Commissioner to fill up the post of jeep driver after getting names from the district employment exchange and following the procedure of communal rotation and reservation. The Commissioner was also informed that the District Collector, Madurai, had received a complaint that while making the appointment, proper legal procedure is not followed and hence, the Commissioner was advised to strictly adhere to the procedure.
5.3. Followed by the said communication, the Personal Assistant (Development) to the District Collector, Madurai, vide memorandum dated 13.11.2014, informed the Commissioner that consequent on the death of the earlier jeep driver, who belonged to the general category, the resultant vacancy should go to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category (on priority basis for Arundhathiyinar) and therefore, he was requested to follow the communal roster while filling up the post.
5.4. The Commissioner, vide proceedings dated 01.12.2014, appointed Ramu as jeep driver for the Chairman, Panchayat Union, after getting names in the employment exchange and after getting the approval of the Appointment Committee. A copy of the said proceedings was marked to the District Collector, Madurai.
5.5. However, the District Collector, Madurai, by proceedings dated 20.01.2015, cancelled the appointment so made, on the following grounds:
a) Communal ro
The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules, and the rejection of an appointment must be in accordance with the applicable rul....
The court emphasized that appointments made in violation of interim directions are unsustainable, reinforcing the necessity of adhering to such orders in recruitment processes.
Vacancy from non-joining in concluded selection must be filled from same panel absent statutory prohibition; category objections invalid if recommended by authority.
The court upheld the validity of appointments made under the reservation policy, emphasizing that claims regarding seniority must be raised timely and that errors in selection processes should not pe....
The court upheld the validity of appointments made under the reservation policy, emphasizing that challenges to such appointments after a significant delay are barred by principles of delay and lache....
The refusal to appoint the applicant, similarly situated to others granted appointments, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is deemed arbitrary.
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
