The court emphasized the need for due process in candidate selection, allowing for examination of qualifications amidst allegations of impropriety.

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This intra Court Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P(MD)No.24135 of 2019, which in fact was a common order passed in the said Writ Petition along with W.P(MD)No.26587 of 2019 filed by another writ petitioner.

2.The short fact is that the appellant Department called for applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the post of Panchayat Secretary for the village called T.Velangulam.

3.There were 32 candidates who made applications, out of whom, six candidates were shortlisted by the appellant Department. Among the six, the private respondent, namely V.Vairavamoorthy, was selected and appointed by appointment order, dated 07.11.2019. Immediately, these two Writ Petitions were filed by the unsuccessful candidates ie., M.Keerthana and G.Anitha, in fact, among the two, M.Keerthana had been in the list of shortlisted candidates of six numbers, whereas the said G.Anitha was not at all put under the zone of consideration among the six.

4.Therefore, ultimately, the learned Judge, while passing the order impugned, dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the said G.Anitha ie., W.P(MD)No.26587 of 2019 and ordered the Writ Petition filed by M.Keerthana in W.P(MD)No.24135 of 2019, whereby the learned Judge had given directions to the appellant Department to move the list of the remaining candidates by redoing the same and accordingly, make a selection among the remaining candidates ie., five candidates, who had been shortlisted along with the said V.Vairavamoorthy originally and accordingly, selection to be given to one of the candidates after such selection.

5.Aggrieved over the said order, the present Appeal has been directed.

6.Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would contend that insofar as the selection that has been made in respect of V.Vairavamoorthy, though allegations had been made by the writ petitioner that his selection was bad because he seems to have given or relied upon fake documents with regard to his qualification. Though such an allegation had been made, it has not been considered and decided as to whether the selection made in respect of the said V.Vairavamoorthy was illegal or improper in view of the production and relying upon fake documents.

7.Without deciding that question, probably because of the said V.Vairavamoorthy subsequently died on 20.12.2020 ie., before deciding the said Writ Petition, the learned Judge had proceeded to give such a direction in the said Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.24135 of 2019 as stated supra.

8.During the hearing, Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner has submitted that subsequently after the demise of V.Vairavamoorthy, his wife has been considered for compassionate appointment and she has been appointed. In this context, he would submit that the 07.11.2019 appointment order in favour of V.Vairavamoorthy having been challenged was stayed by the order of the Writ Court, dated 15.11.2019. Therefore, during the pendency of the stay order only, since such an appointment on compassionate grounds has been given to the wife of V.Vairavamoorthy ie., in violation of the order dated 15.11.2019, for which separately contempt proceedings had been initiated before the Writ Court.

9.He would also submit that since the issue as to whether the selection made in respect of V.Vairavamoorthy is correct or not has not been decided by the Writ Court in the order impugned, in order to decide the same and to review the order which is impugned herein, already a review petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent/M.Keerthana before the Writ Court that is also pending.

10.Therefore, all these issues arisen out of the selection that has been made in respect of V.Vairavamoorthy, in whose favour appointment had been given, whether he has joined duty or not and by virtue of the interim order passed by the Writ Court, dated 15.11