Priority in appointment claims must be supported by merit as per relevant government orders.

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned selection list dated 11.01.2023 issued by the second respondent for the post of Village Assistant in Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, pursuant to the Notification dated 12.10.2022, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to cancel the selection of the third respondent and appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant in Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

2. The main contention raised in the present Writ Petition, as well as argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner claims priority under the category of destitute widow as provided under G.O. (Ms) No.122, Human Resources Management (K2) Department, dated 02.11.2021. However, the first and second respondents, ignoring the priority of the petitioner, who also belongs to the MBC/DNC category, have erroneously selected the third respondent, thereby depriving the petitioner of selection and appointment to the post of Village Assistant in question.

3. Though notice has been served on the third respondent, no appearance is entered.

4. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the third respondent herein was found to be more meritorious than the petitioner, having secured 86.66 marks as against 49 marks secured by the petitioner. The counter affidavit further states that the third respondent also belongs to the MBC/DNC category and the third respondent, having studied in Tamil Medium, is entitled to claim priority under the PSTM category, which falls under Category No.3 as provided in the Annexure to G.O. (Ms) No.122, Human Resources Management (K2) Department, dated 02.11.2021, whereas the petitioner herein, even if her claim of priority under the category of destitute widow is accepted, would fall under Category No.6. In the light of the said averments, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that there was no illegality or error in the selection and appointment of the third respondent as Village Assistant.

5. This Court, after having examined the contentions raised on either side and after perusing the materials on record, is of the considered view that the priority claimed by the petitioner under the category of destitute widow would fall under Category No.6 as provided in the Annexure to G.O. (Ms) No.122, Human Resources Management (K2) Department, dated 02.11.2021, whereas the third respondent has claimed priority under the PSTM category, which would fall under Category No.3 in terms of the said Government Order.

6. As seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the third respondent was found to be more meritorious than the petitioner, having secured 86.66 marks as against 49 marks secured by the petitioner.

7. In the light of the above, the claim made by the petitioner for priority under Category No.6 in terms of G.O. (Ms) No.122, Human Resources Management (K2) Department, dated 02.11.2021 is of no consequence, as the third respondent is entitled to claim priority under Category No.3, which has rightly been accepted by the first and second respondents. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.