The court reaffirms that public employment criteria cannot discriminate based on residency, upholding merit and vulnerability in appointment considerations.

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2. The writ petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the appointment order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A1/1862/2016 dated 13.06.2016 appointing the 4^th respondent as Noon Meal Organiser in the third respondent school and to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner instead, based on the certificate verification conducted on 11.06.2016.

3. It is not disputed that the petitioner had participated in the certificate verification process conducted on 11.06.2016. The petitioner claims that she is a destitute widow belonging to the same Panchayat where the third respondent school is situated, and that she was fully eligible under the relevant guidelines. Her grievance is that the 4th respondent, who allegedly belongs to a different Panchayat, was appointed in violation of the distance criterion laid down under G.O.(Ms.)No.163, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010.

4. The petitioner’s primary contention rests on the fact that she resided within the same Panchayat and within close proximity to the school, approximately ¼ kilometer, whereas the 4^th respondent, who was appointed, hailed from another Panchayat. The petitioner claims this violates the stipulation under G.O.(Ms.)No.163, which stipulated selection of local candidates residing within a three-kilometer radius of the Noon Meal Centre.

5. The G.O.(Ms.)No.163 dated 18.08.2010 introduced a distance-based preference for appointment, purportedly for administrative efficacy. This Court in Anusha Malarvizhi v. The District Collector in W.P.(MD) No.19227 of 2017, dated 12.02.2025, while drawing attention to the judgment of the Apex Court, this Court engaged in Article 16(2), which prohibits discrimination in public employment on the ground of residence and interrogated the indirect barriers such distance criteria impose on marginalised group thus:

“ 28. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180 has explicitly held as follows:

“25. ....State cannot grant reservation in public employment on the basis of residence in that State. The exception carved out under Clause 3 of Article 16, enables only the Parliament to make a law prescribing a requirement of residence for State employment. And there is a reason behind it.”

29. The two Division Bench judgments, in re The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare and Nutritious Department, Chennai & Others vs. M. Muthulakshmi & Another, dated 22.03.2017 and in re State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Chandra , W.A. (MD) No. 107 of 2013 along with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, while addressing the residential criterion of being within 3 kilometers, did not consider the bar imposed by Article 16(2) of the Constitution, nor did they recognize that any relaxation in this regard can only be made by Parliament under Article 16(3). Consequently, the only constitutionally valid and legally permissible interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare & NMP Department, dated 18.08.2010, concerning the distance criterion, is that it may serve as a rule of preference when all other factors are equal….”

6. In the present case, the records disclose that the 4^th respondent was appointed on 13.06.2016 and had continued in service thereafter. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that she passed away on 08.09.2024. This development does not render the writ petition abated as the challenge pertains to a public appointment. The learned Additional Government Pleader has, in the counter affidavit, clarified that the selection process was conducted pursuant to a duly notified recruitment, in which 47