Confusion in maintaining records and applications can lead to erroneous appointment orders, and the court may impose costs for improper practices such as awarding marks in pencil.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to impugned order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the respondent in RC.N6/231/15 and quash the same.)

1. The writ petition had been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order, dated 26.02.2016.

2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that for the purpose of filling up the vacancy relating to the post Noon Meal Organiser, the respondent had issued publication calling for the applications. The petitioner submitted her application for the said post. After due scrutiny of the petitioner's application with all relevant records relating to the eligibility criteria, the petitioner was allowed to attend the interview. On the basis of the list submitted by the selection committee and after being satisfied about the eligibility criteria, on merits, the respondent vide proceedings in R.C.N6/231/15, dated 19.02.2016 issued appointment order to the post of Noon Meal Organiser to the petitioner and she was allowed to join in the Noon Meal Centre attached to the Government Aadhi Dravidar Middle School, Aadanur on temporary basis. The Block Development Officer, after verifying the appointment order, directed the petitioner to join the school and the petitioner joined duty on 01.03.2016. But on very next day i.e. on 02.03.2016, when the petitioner reported for duty, the Block Development Officer orally directed the concerned Headmaster not to permit the petitioner to attend the duty. When the petitioner sought explanation, the Headmaster could not explain why the petitioner was prevented from attending duty. The petitioner tried to meet the Block Development Officer. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.4993/2016 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to attend the work based on the appointment order. When that writ petition came up for hearing along with several other writ petitions with a same set of allegations on 11.03.2016, this Court directed the Government Advocate to take instructions. Pending that writ petition, on 19.03.2016, the petitioner received the impugned order, dated 22.02.2016, terminating the petitioner's appointment and the reason for such termination is that the appointment order had been issued in the petitioner's name i.e., K.Deepa instead of the candidate namely, G.Deepa and this was found on verification of photograph in the application. At the time of joining duty, the impugned order though stated that the respondent had signed on 26.02.2016 and the same had been dispatched by Registered Post on 13.03.2016. Before she joined the duty on 01.03.2016, the Block Development Officer, Thuraiyur Panchayat Union on 29.02.2016 verified all the records along with the appointment order. On 01.03.2016, the concerned Head Master, after verification of the records, allowed the petitioner to join the duty. But he prevented the petitioner from attending duty on 02.03.2016. The further contention of the petitioner is that even though the impugned order was signed on 26.02.2016, the same was served to the petitioner on 13.03.2016. Therefore, the petitioner alleges deliberate, mischievous and fraudulent attitude of the respondents. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed this petition.

3. The respondent had filed counter and subsequently filed better another counter as per the direction of this Court. In the first counter, the first respondent stated that in order to fill up the vacancy to the post of Noon Meal Organizer and Assistants in Trichy District as per the orders of the Government in D.O.roc.35237/NMS-1/2012, dated 18.02.2015, applications were invited from the public by issuing paper publication as well as departmental notice. The respondents contended due to inadvertent error, instead of sending the appointment order to G.Deepa, it had been sent to the