SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 34029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
Vellaiyappan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P(MD) No.9474 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 26.03.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

W.P(MD) No.9474 of 2023 and

W.M.P(MD) Nos.8459 & 8460 of 2023

Vellaiyappan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector Dindigul District,

Dindigul.

2.The Thasildar Natham Taluk,

Dindigul District.

3.Subburaj ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of declaration to declare the

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 11:56:17 am )

##PAGE2##

W.P(MD) No.9474 of 2023

impugned notification dated 09.05.2022 in S.V.No.18/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and its consequential appointment order as

unconstitutional.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Logesh Kumar

For Respondents : Mr.Shaji Bino -for R1 & R2 Special Government Pleader

Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen– for R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of

declaration challenging the impugned notification issued by the second respondent in S.V.No.18/2022 dated 09.05.2022, proposing to fill up the post of Village assistant of various villages and also sought for Consequential direction to declare the appointment order issued in favour

of the 3rd respondent as unconstitutional.

2. The second respondent filed counter affidavit and the

fourth respondent also filed counter affidavit.

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 11:56:17 am )

##PAGE3##

W.P(MD) No.9474 of 2023

3. Heard Mr.A.Logesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned counsel

for respondent No.3.

4. Insofar as challenge to the notification is concerned, this

Court is not inclined to examine the said aspect for the simple reason that the petitioner himself has participated in the recruitment process as per the impugned notification and emerged as unsuccessful candidate and after having failed to succeed in the selection process, the petitioner has now chosen to challenge the notification. In the light of the settled legal position, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the notification or any of the conditions imposed therein, after having participated in the recruitment process, under the very same notification. Then coming to the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need to be considered is that the 3rd respondent is not eligible to be appointed as Village Assistant in respect to the village Chellapanayakkanpatti as he

is not the resident of the village.

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 11:56:17 am )

##PAGE4##

W.P(MD) No.9474 of 2023

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is

only incase if no candidate is available from the said village, the candidates from neighbouring village can be considered for appointment. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the Rules of Tamil Nadu Village Assistant Special Rules issued in G.O.(Ms)No.521,

Revenue Department dated 17.06.1998.

6. In terms of the said Rule 7(c), the person appointed to the

post of Village Assistant shall belong to the village to which, he is appointed or the adjoining village, if no suitable candidate is available from that village. The said Rule came to be amended subsequently, through G.O.(Ms)No.375, Revenue (Ser8(1)) Department dated 19.10.2015 and by virtue of the said amendment now the requirement under Clause (c) of Rule 7 is that the person appointed to the post shall belong to the same Taluk to which he is appointed. The requirement of being resident of the same village was taken away by virtue of the above amendment. Therefore, the ground on which the appointment of the 3rd

respondent is sought to be challenged has to fail.

4/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/04/2026 11:56:17 am )

##PAGE5##

W.P(MD) No.9474 of 2023

7. Insofar as far as the other contention raised on the ground

that the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top