IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.10.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

W.A.No.2680 of 2022

and CMP.No.21631 of 2022

M.Roja ... Appellant

Vs.

1.Jayalakshmi

2.The District Collector,

Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 3.The Block Development Officer,

(Block Panchayats),

Palacode, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.31454 of

2022.

For Appellant : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy,

Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Sudhan

For Respondents : Mr.P.Mohanraj for

Mr.P.Rajendran (for R1)

Mr.G.Ameedius, Government Advocate (for R2 & R3)

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)

The appellant herein along with the first respondent, had participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organizer at Panchayat Union Primary School, Sarkarai Aalai. In the selection process, the appellant herein had scored 41 marks, while the first respondent scored 39 marks. By an order dated 13.11.2017, the appellant herein was appointed as the Noon Meal Organizer for the Primary School, Sarkarai Aalai. The first respondent had challenged the appellant’s appointment before this Court in WP.No.31454 of 2022 and by an order dated 10.10.2022, the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the appointment order of the appellant and by holding that both the first respondent and the appellant herein did not reside within the stipulated 3 Kms radius from the centre in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010 and thus, directed the authority to conduct a fresh selection process by following the procedures. This order passed in the Writ Petition is under challenge before us in this Writ Appeal.

2. The distance criterion for a candidate to reside from the centre has been often referred to the Government for necessary clarification. In G.O.Ms.No.203, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme (Social Welfare-7) Department, dated 19.08.2005, the Government had clarified as follows:-

(1) Wherever there is vacancy in any Noon Meal or Anganwadi Centre, eligible persons residing in the same hamlet should be appointed.

(2) Where qualified persons are unavailable in the hamlet, eligible persons from other neighbouring hamlets under the same village panchayat should be selected. If even such persons are not available, then qualified persons from other panchayats, not beyond the distance of 10 kilometers surrounding the said panchayat should be selected.

3. From the above clarification, it is seen that the criterion of 3 kms from the centre was not absolute and whenever no qualified person is available within the hamlet, it will always be open to the appointment authorities to select the candidates from beyond 3 kms radius.

4. In the present case, while the appellant was residing 6.9 kms away from the centre, the first respondent was residing 5.380 kms away from the centre. When G.O.Ms.No.203 dated 19.08.2005 itself relaxes the 3 kms radius, when the candidates within the hamlet are not available and further provides for considering candidates within 10 kms, both the residence of the appellant, as well as the first respondent, which is within 10 kms from the centre, will qualify for consideration in the selection process.

5. Thus, finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 10.10.2022 that both the appellant, as well as the first respondent herein did not qualify the distance criterion in G.O.Ms.No.163 dated 18.08.2010, may warrant interference.

6. During the course of selection process, the appellant had scored 41 marks, while the first respondent scored 39 marks. While allotting the marks, the appellant was awarded 9 marks for her knowledge in the Noon Meal Scheme, whereas the first respondent was awarded only 5 marks. Since both of them resided within 1