Residency requirements in recruitment notifications can be relaxed to appoint the next most eligible candidate if no candidates are available within the specified radius, ensuring the post is filled in accordance with Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution.

Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, against the order dated 10.11.2025 in W.P.No.42084 of 2025.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan

Additional Advocate General

assisted by Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh

Special Government Pleader

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

1. This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order dated 10.11.2025 made in W.P.No.42084 of 2025.

2. The first respondent was the writ petitioner. The fifth respondent / Revenue Tahsildar issued a notification dated 20.06.2015 calling for applications from the eligible candidates in the nearby villages at Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District for selection and appointment to the post of Village Assistant at ten villages in the said Taluk, namely, Virudhachalam.

3. Pursuant to the said notification, there were 35 applications made including the first respondent / writ petitioner. Out of 35 applications, according to the fourth appellant herein who is the Revenue Tahsildar, only 18 applicants participated in the interview. Ultimately, insofar as the post of Village Assistant at Koonankurichi village is concerned which is one among the ten villages for which the notification was issued, the sixth respondent in the writ petition who is the third respondent herein, namely, Anthoniraj had been selected and appointed as Village Assistant in respect of Koonankurichi village.

4. Questioning the said appointment on the ground that the said Anthoniraj never made an application even and also had not attended the interview, therefore, the selection and appointment made in favour of the said Anthoniraj is a fraudulent action on the part of the employer, the writ petition in W.P.No.2710 of 2016 was filed by the first respondent / writ petitioner.

5. The writ Court passed an order dated 20.09.2022 in the said writ petition giving certain directions in paragraph Nos.27 to 30 of the said order which in fact has been extracted by the learned Judge in the present impugned order.

6. Aggrieved over the said direction issued by the writ Court, the said Anthoniraj preferred an intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.527 of 2022. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.12.2023 had confirmed the said order passed by the writ Court.

7. Pursuant to the directions issued by the writ Court as has been confirmed by the Division Bench, the District Collector, who is the second appellant herein had conducted an enquiry and passed a very detailed order on 23.09.2025 whereby he found that the said Anthoniraj not even made an application and therefore, his selection and appointment is a fraudulent one and hence, his appointment was cancelled and it seems that disciplinary action in fact has been initiated against the officer concerned, who made such appointment in favour of the said Anthoniraj. The relevant portion of the order passed by the District Collector dated 23.09.2025 is extracted hereinbelow:

“8. The files received from the Virudhachalam Revenue Tahsildar do not contain any complete documents detailing the procedures for filling the vacancy. In considering the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court for taking action, Thiru.Antonyraj S/o.Kaspar has applied for the post of Village Assistant. While reviewing the documents submitted by the individual and the files of the Virudhachalam Revenue Tahsildar, the details were not in the file. Furthermore, since Thiru.Anthonyraj has expressed two contradictory opinions regarding the manner in which he applied, doubts arise as to whether the individual was given the position after applying properly. Therefore, i