The District Collector vs Kavitha

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 26, 2025

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1740695

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1740695
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice R. Subramanian,Honourable Mr.Justice G.Arul Murugan
Decided On: Feb 26, 2025
Case Number: /501/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The District Collector

Respondent

Kavitha

Excerpt

.....district dated 27.06.2019.2. the whole controversy arose as follows:-the 1st respondent along with others was appointed as a cook in the noon meal scheme and they were terminated on 12.09.2012. the said termination was challenged before this court and this court granted stay. by virtue of the order of stay, the petitioners along with others continued to serve. thereafter, there was another termination order in 2015, which resulted in yet another writ petition in w.p.no.2364 of 2016 being filed and this court granted stay on 25.01.2016.3. it is now claimed that during the pendency of the writ petition, thetermination order dated 17.12.2015 was withdrawn on 27.04.2016. therefore, the writ petitions in w.p.no.4845 of 2016 etc., batch were dismissed. the said order was challenged in w.a.no.657 of 2019 and a division bench of this court passed the following order:-“6. we find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the block development officer was authorized under g.o. (ms) no. 11, social welfare and nutritious meal programme (nmp1) department dated 22.01.2007 to notify the vacancies, call for applications, conduct interviews and send proposals for appointment of suitable persons to the personal assistant(nmp) to the district collector and that the appellant cannot be blamed for that block development officer having issued their appointment orders, instead of the personal assistant(nmp) to the district collector. at the same time, when theblock development officer is not the competent authority to issue the appointment order, it would not be appropriate to direct the reinstatement of the services of the appellant. the proper recourse, in such circumstances, would be to direct thepersonal assistant (nmp) to the district collector, krishnagiri to call for the recommendations made by the block development officer for filling up the posts of cooks and noon meal assistants (including the appellant) and after.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and C.M.P.No. 4340 of 2025 1.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 2.The Personal Assistant to the District Collector ( Noon Meal Scheme) Krishnagiri District. ... Appellants Vs. 1.Kavitha 2.The Block Development Officer, Kaveripattinam Panchayat Union, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the

order dated 05.03.2024 made in W.P.No.1594 of 2020.

For Appellants : Mr.P.Muthukumar Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Mahendran for R1 Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader for R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Challenge in this Writ Appeal is to the order of the writ Court allowing the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent, quashing the order of the Personal Assistant to the District Collector (Noon Meal Scheme), Krishnagiri District dated 27.06.2019.

2. The whole controversy arose as follows:-

The 1st respondent along with others was appointed as a Cook in the Noon Meal scheme and they were terminated on 12.09.2012. The said termination was challenged before this Court and this Court granted stay. By virtue of the order of stay, the petitioners along with others continued to serve. Thereafter, there was another termination order in 2015, which resulted in yet another writ petition in W.P.No.2364 of 2016 being filed and this Court granted stay on 25.01.2016.

3. It is now claimed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the

termination order dated 17.12.2015 was withdrawn on 27.04.2016. Therefore, the writ petitions in W.P.No.4845 of 2016 etc., batch were dismissed. The said order was challenged in W.A.No.657 of 2019 and a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:-

“6. We find considerable force in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Block Development Officer was authorized under G.O. (Ms) No. 11, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (NMP1) Department dated 22.01.2007 to notify the vacancies, call for applications, conduct interviews and send proposals for appointment of suitable persons to the Personal Assistant

(NMP) to the District Collector and that the Appellant cannot be blamed for that Block Development Officer having issued their appointment orders, instead of the Personal Assistant

(NMP) to the District Collector. At the same time, when the

Block Development Officer is not the competent authority to issue the appointment order, it would not be appropriate to direct the reinstatement of the services of the Appellant. The proper recourse, in such circumstances, would be to direct the

Personal Assistant (NMP) to the District Collector, Krishnagiri to call for the recommendations made by the Block Development Officer for filling up the posts of Cooks and Noon Meal Assistants (including the Appellant) and after examining the same, pass reasoned orders thereon in accordance with law and communicate the decision taken to the concerned parties and file a report of compliance in that regard before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by 30.06.2019. The reinstatement of the Appellant in service would depend upon the outcome of the orders to be passed by the Personal Assistant (NMP) Krishnagiri. to the District."

4. A compliance report as directed was filed before the Registrar Judicial of this Court and operative portion of the same reads as follows:-

"nkw;go tHf;fpd; jPh;g;g[iuapy; kDjhuh;fspd; hpl; mg;gPy; kD Vw;Wf;bfhs;sg;gl;L rikayh; kw;Wk; rikay; fhypg;gzpapl';fis epug;gpLk;bgh GJ kDjhuh;fs; cl;gl midtUf;Fk; bjhptpj;J jFjpahd egh;fis tl;lhu tsh;rr ; p mYtyhpd; ghpe;Jiua[ld; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiythpd; neh;Kf cjtpahsh; (rj;Jzt[) mth;fSf;F mDg;gp njh;t[ bra;jplt[k;. nkw;fz;l jPh;g;ghizf;Fl;gl;L vLf;fg;gl;l eltof;if tptuj;jpid 30/06/2019f;Fs; gjpthsh; (ePjpj;Jiw). brd;id cah;ej P pkd;wk; mth;fSf;F bjhptpj;jpl mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. rj;Jzt[ rikayh; kw;Wk; rikay; cjtpahsh;fs; neuo gzp

epakdj;jpd;nghJ nkw;fz;l kDjhuh;fs; tpz;zg;gpf;Fk;gl;rj;jpy; tpjpfSf;Fl;gl;L jFjpapd; mog;gilapy; ghprPyid bra;ag;gLk; vd;gij gzpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/"

5. It was this order, which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. The Writ Court rightly found that the orders of the Division Bench have not been properly implemented by the

P.A. to the District Collector. Therefore, the Writ Court quashed the order

and directed the respondents to comply with the orders of the Division Bench in its letter and spirit. Aggrieved, the State is on appeal.

6. We find that a very brave attempt has been made by the P.A. to the

District Collector, who had passed the orders impugned in the writ petitions. We call it brave because he either exhibits total arrogance or total incompetence in understanding the orders of this Court. When a Division Bench had categorically directed him to collect the recommendations from the Block Development Officer and implement the same, he gives his own interpretation as if the direction was to collect the recommendations during future appointments. This was not the purport of the order of the Division Bench and this was set right by the Writ Court.

7. This audacious appeal has again been filed by the District Collector

and the P.A to the District Collector, Krishnagiri District. This appeal, we find that it is an another attempt to hoodwink this Court. We are sure that this appeal has been filed only with an intention to deprive appointment to the petitioners in accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench. We strongly condemn the attitude of the Officials and we dismiss the appeal with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the 1st respondent. The costs shall be paid within a period of 15 days from today. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

8. Post 'for reporting compliance' on 17.03.2025. (R.S.M., J.) (G.A.M., J.) 26.02.2025 kkn Index: No

Speaking order

Neutral Citation : No Note:- Issue order copy on 06.03.2025. To: 1.The Block Development Officer, Kaveripattinam Panchayat Union, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri District. 2.The District Collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 3.The Personal Assistant to the District Collector ( Noon Meal Scheme) Krishnagiri District.

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

KKN and C.M.P.No.4340 of 2025 26.02.2025

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2025 Same Parties The District Collector vs Kavitha Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice R. Subramanian,Honourable Mr.Justice G....