Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3655
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.
Anusha Malarvizhi D/o Murugesan - Appellant
Versus
District Collector, Virudhunagar - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 19227 of 2017, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 15582, 15583 of 2017
Decided On : 12-02-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : G. Marimuthu
For the Respondents : J. Ashok, S. Sadesh Kumar
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.G.Marimuthu
For the Respondent: Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader for R1, R2 and R4. Mr.S.Sadesh Kumar for R3
The imposition of a residential criterion for public employment violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution, as it discriminates based on residence and undermines affirmative action for marginalized groups.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16(1) - Government Orders G.O.Ms.No.163 and G.O.Ms.No.72 - Appointment of Noon Meal Organiser - The petitioner challenged the appointment of the 5th Respondent on grounds of residential qualification, asserting that the latter resided beyond the prescribed 3-kilometer radius. The court noted that while the distance criterion is specified, it is not mandatory and the selection is primarily based on interview performance. (Paras 6, 8, 20)
(B) Affirmative Action - The court emphasized that the imposition of a residence-based criterion undermines the intent of affirmative action for Scheduled Caste women, potentially violating Article 16(2) of the Constitution. (Paras 20, 29)
(C) Judicial Precedent - The court referenced previous judgments that upheld the validity of the distance criterion while also recognizing the need for a more inclusive approach to appointments in the context of social justice. (Paras 10, 12, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a resident of Chinnathathampatti village, contested the appointment of the 5th Respondent as Noon Meal Organiser, claiming she did not meet the residential requirement. The 5th Respondent had been serving for seven years without issue. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the appointment of the 5th Respondent, stating that the distance criterion is directory and not a disqualifying factor, affirming her appointment based on interview performance. (Paras 29, 30)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the residential qualification for the appointment and its implications for affirmative action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the distance criterion serves as a preference rather than a strict disqualification, emphasizing the need to uphold the principles of equality and non-discrimination in public employment. (Paras 20, 29)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. In the above Writ Petition, when it was taken up for admission on 13.10.2017, the learned Special Government Pleader accepted notice on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4. For the 5th Respondent, notice was directed both through the Court and privately. The court-issued notice was received by the 5th Respondent, with acknowledgement recorded, and counsel has entered an appearance. A counter affidavit dated 16.12.2024 was filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent.
3. The petitioner claimed to be a resident of Chinnathathampatti village and had applied for the position of Noon Meal Organiser at the Noon Meal Centre attached to the Panchayat Union Primary School, Chinnathathampatti. By the order issued by the 1st Respondent, the District Collector, dated Nil, April 2017, the 5th Respondent was selected and appointed to the position. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.05.2017 to the 1st Respondent, objecting to the appointment of the 5th Respondent.
4. One Sundarapandian submitted a representation under the RTI Act to the Public Information Officer in the office of the 1st Respondent, seeking information regarding the appointment of the 5th Respondent and the distance between the primary school and the village where the 5th Respondent resides. In response, it was informed that the 5th Respondent's appointment was based on her performance in the interview as per G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010. It was also stated that her village may be located beyond a distance of 3 kilometres.
5. The contention raised was that, as per the Government Order, an individual seeking an appointment must reside within a 3-kilometer radius of the Noon Meal Centre. Therefore, the appointment of the 5th Respondent should be set aside, and the petitioner should be appointed in her place. Although in WMP(MD) No. 15583 of 2017, a request was made for a stay on further proceedings related to the appointment made in April 2017, no orders were passed on the matter.
6. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the distance prescribed for a residential qualification for a candidate, as prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010, and G.O.Ms.No. 72, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 30.04.2012, specifies a 3-kilometer radius as a criterion, but it is not mandatory. The selection is primarily based on the performance of candidates in the interview. It was further contended that appointing a person from within the same Panchayat Union (Block), even if beyond 3 kilometres, does not violate Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. It was also stated that the 5th Respondent has been serving at the school for the past seven years without any blemish, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
7. The counsel for the petitioner did not dispute either the community status of the 5th Respondent or her eligibility qualifications. Furthermore, the fact that she has been serving in the position for the past seven years following her appointment was not contested. However, reference was made to the distance criterion prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010, which states as follows:
8. Based on the distance criterion, it was contended that the 5th Respondent resided beyond the prescribed 3-kilometer limit and should therefore be disqualified. Reliance was placed on the judgment of a Division Bench in The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare and Nutritious Department, Chennai & Others vs. M. Muthulakshmi & Another, dated 22.03.2017, wherein the clarification issued by the Government through G.O.Ms.No. 203, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 19.08.2005, was referenced and quoted. In this clarification, the Government provided the following interpretation of the Government Order:
"(1) When
