IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN E.Gnanakannan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Department, Rep By Its Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai -600 0090

2.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3.The District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

4.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Cuddalore Distric Cuddalore.

5.The Revenue Tahsildar, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

6.Anthoniraj ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in proceedings Na.Ka.No. A6/326/2016 dated 23.09.2025 on the file of the 2^nd respondent, so for it pertains to non appointment of the Petitioner for the post of Village Assistant, KoonakurichiVillage, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further direct the 2^nd respondent to appoint the Petitioner for the above said post, based on the direction in W.A.No. 527 of 2022 dated 19.12.2023 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.Avinashwadhawani For R1 to R5 : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated

23.09.2025 passed by the second respondent, insofar as it relates to the non-appointment of the petitioner to the post of Village Assistant, Koonakurichi Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

1 to 5. Perused the materials available on record.

3.The petitioner applied for the post of Village Assistant for Koonakurichi Village on 24.06.2015 through Employment Exchange, pursuant to the notification issued by the fifth respondent dated 20.06.2015, calling for applications to fill up the vacancies in the post of Village Assistant for ten villages. A total of 35 applications were received by the Revenue Tahsildar, out of which 18 applicants participated in the interview. Though the petitioner was effectively participated in the interview, he was not selected for the said post and the sixth respondent herein was appointed as Village Assistant. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the sixth respondent did not even appear for the interview which was held on 30.06.2015. The Appointing Authority committed fraud and appointed the sixth respondent in an irregular manner. Aggrieved by the said appointment, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation and the same was not considered. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.2710 of 2016. This Court, by order dated 20.09.2022, issued the following directions :

“27.In the light of the above discussion the District Collector, the 2^nd respondent herein is directed to examine the records surrounding the appointment of the 11^th respondent herein, as to whether the 11^th respondent was indeed sponsored by the 4^th respondent District Employment Officer or not.

28.If the 11^th respondent was not sponsored by the 4^th respondent District Employment Office, the petitioner should have been appointed as he was sponsored by the 4^th respondent District Employment Office to the post of Village Assistant.

29.In case the 2^nd respondent concludes that the 11^th respondent was indeed not sponsored by the 4^th respondent District Employment Office or that the 11^th respondent was much junior tot he petitioner then the 5^th respondent shall take expeditious steps to appoint the petitioner to the post of Village Assistant in terms of the Notification dated 20.06.2015. It is left open to the Appointing Authority to take steps to proceed against the 5^th respondent if there was any irregularity.

30.The 2^nd respondent shall call for the records surroun