IMPORTANT POINT
The exclusive reservation for Scheduled Caste-Arunthathiyar for the post of Noon Meal Organiser as per the notification and the consideration of the petitioner's case for future recruitment due to her belonging to a scheduled caste and a poor agricultural family.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.414/2012 Sa.Oo.T-I dated 19.07.2012 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in Pillankulam Panchayat Union Middle School and pass such further orders.)

1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 19.07.2012, passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.414/2012 Sa.Oo.T-I and consequently direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Noon Meal Organiser in the Pillankulam Panchayat Union Middle School.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to the Adi Dravida (Paryar) community and residing at Pillankulam Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District. She had passed the 12th Standard and registered her name in the employment exchange vide registration No.PRD 2010F00043 dated 26.09.2010. The 1st respondent invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organiser in Pillankulam Panchayat Union Middle School at Veppanthattai Panchayat Union. The advertisement includes a post at Panchayat Union Middle School, Pillankulam. The petitioner who is a resident of Pillankulam submitted her application well within the stipulated time and the petitioner attended the interview on 18.07.2012. The petitioner satisfies all the necessary qualifications for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organiser and she resides within the same village where the vacancy has arisen both educationally and in other aspects. The post has been earmarked for scheduled caste – arunthathiyar community and the petitioner is of the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste who applied for the post.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent in his proceedings dated 19.07.2012, has appointed the 2nd respondent as Noon Meal Organiser in the Panchayat Union Middle School, which is in violation of the conditions of the residential qualification etc. The 2nd respondent is residing at Kariyanur village which is situated about 7 km away from Pillankulam village. He further submitted that for the post of Noon Meal Organiser as per the Government Order in force, a person residing in the same work place is more preferable than a person residing in faraway place. The petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community and is educationally qualified, besides having residential qualification for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organiser, whereas the 2nd respondent though educationally qualified, is residing 7 km away from the work place and hence her appointment is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government.

4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the post of Noon Meal Organiser in a particular village is filled up in order to give opportunity to those who reside there in the same village or within 2 km from the work place. But at the same time, in the case of the 2nd respondent's husband, who is working as a Secretary, Kariyanur Milk Procedures Co-operative Society (PRD 64), she has sufficient income to maintain the family, whereas the petitioner's parents are illiterate, agricultural labourers and unable to make both ends meet. The petitioner after coming to know about the appointment of the 2nd respondent, made a representation on 23.07.2012 for which there was no response from the respondents. Aggrieved by the appointment of the 2nd respondent to the post of Noon Meal Organiser, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

5. A counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent on September 2012 and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder for better appreciation and understanding:

“6. It is submitted that a total of