Full Judgment
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.29813/2012/Sa.Vu.Thi.1 dated 13/7/2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Noon Meals Cooker in Madurai West Panchayat Union Middle School, Thenur, madurai District.)
ORDER
1. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order in Na.Ka.No.29813/2012/Sa.Vu.Thi.1 dated 13/7/2012, ordering appointment of the fourth respondent as Noon Meal Cook at Madurai West Panchayat Union Middle School, Thenur, Madurai District.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was married in the year 2010 with one Pavunraj according to Hindu Marriage Rites and Ceremonies. Out of their wedlock, one male child was born. The husband of the petitioner died on 7/6/2011. Since then, the petitioner is living with her parents along with her child.
3. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the first respondent, the petitioner applied for the post of Noon Meal Cook at Madurai West Panchayat Union Middle School, Thenur, Madurai District. The petitioner was called for an interview on 5/7/2012 where she produced all certificates viz., Transfer Certificate, Community certificate, Nativity Certificate and Death certificate of her husband.
4. It is submitted that the first respondent informed the petitioner that the appointment letter will be sent to her house. But as she failed to receive the appointment letter, thereafter, on enquiry, it was revealed that the fourth respondent was appointed.
5. It is submitted by the petitioner that it was stipulated in the advertisement that the candidate should be residing in the local area and that preference will be given to the widow. The fourth respondent does not reside in the local area. (However, the address of the fourth respondent shown in the writ is 3/467 Thenur Pudhu Colony, Thenur, Madurai 2.) Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this averment.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent is staying at Dindigul along with her husband, whereas the petitioner is living with her parents as widow at Thenur. The petitioner, even filed a representation to the first respondent for cancelling the appointment of the fourth respondent and it is on failure of the respondents to take action on the representation of the petitioner that this writ petition has been filed.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the District Collector failed to notice that the petitioner is a widow whereas the fourth respondent is living with her husband. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled preference in appointment.
8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was residing in the area within three kms., of the place of appointment, whereas the fourth respondent was not staying within the area concerned.
9. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel.
10. In the place of residence or preference to the widow cannot be taken to be mandatory conditions for selecting a person. The Government instructions issued vide G.O., are also executing instructions having no force of law. They are only governing factors for consideration of the claim. The respondents were bound to select the best available person for appointment, the question of preference can be looked into in case merit is same. The appointment of fourth respondent is challenged being married and said to be living with her husband, though her address is shown by the petitioner herself to be at Thenur, Madurai. There are no challenge to the merit of the fourth respondent for being appointed as Noon Meal Cook.
11. The grounds raised in the writ petition cannot be a ground to set aside an appointment of a candidate, as it is not disputed that the petitioner was considered for appointment and not selected because the fourth respondent was found to be better in merit.
12. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.