Madras High Court finds political interference in appointment of Village Assistant
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan quashes the appointment order issued to a school dropout and instead orders appointment of a graduate in computer applications
The judge directed the Nagapattinam Collector to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Tirukkuvalai tahsildar for having issued the appointment order in favour of L. Lavanya who had resigned from the post of Kilvelur panchayat ward member after getting appointed as the Village Assistant.
| Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO
The Madras High Court has found political interference in the appointment of a Class X-qualified candidate to the post of Village Assistant after rejecting the candidature of a computer applications graduate. It has set aside the appointment order issued in favour of the school dropout and directed the government officials to appoint the graduate to the post.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan also directed the Nagapattinam Collector to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Tirukkuvalai tahsildar for having issued the appointment order in favour of L. Lavanya who had resigned from the post of Kilvelur panchayat ward member after getting appointed as the Village Assistant of Melavazhakarai in Tirukkuvalai Taluk in 2023.
The orders were passed while allowing a writ petition filed by B. Kavitha, a Bachelor of Computer Applications (BCA) degree holder and a resident of Melavazhakarai. Her counsel R. Sampath Kumar told the court that a recruitment notification was issued in October 2022 for appointment to the post of Village Assistant and a written examination was conducted in December 2022.
Thereafter, an interview committee consisting of the Tahsildar, a Deputy Tahsildar (Headquarters) and Special Tahsildar (Social Security Scheme) assessed the candidates. Shockingly, the writ petitioner was granted only five marks in the interview, whereas Ms. Lavanya was awarded full 12 marks and consequently appointed to the post leading to the present writ petition.
When the judge called for the entire records of the selection process, he found that the petitioner had been awarded 10 marks for her educational qualification, whereas the school dropout had been awarded only seven marks. However, when it came to driving skills, the writ petitioner had been given only four marks as against five marks awarded to Ms. Lavanya.
The judge wondered on what basis had she been given five marks for driving skill despite not being in possession of a licence to ride a two-wheeler or drive a four-wheeler. He was also shocked to find that the writ petitioner had been given just three marks each for English and Tamil reading skills whereas her contender had been awarded five marks each in both the categories.
On perusing the answer sheets of the written examination, the judge found that the petitioner was highly skilled in answering the questions and possessed the expertise to express her views in a presentable manner. Her handwriting too was neat and legible. On the contrary, her contender’s answer sheet exhibited that she was incapable of writing in either English or Tamil.
“Therefore, the marks awarded to the ninth respondent as (5+5) in the reading skills of Tamil and English is not proper,” the judge said and expressed surprise over her having been awarded the highest mark of 12 in the interview though all other applicants had been awarded only around five marks despite them having been better qualified than the school dropout.
The judge said, despite being awarded such high marks in the interview, the school dropout had ended up securing total marks of 80 which was equivalent to the total score of the writ petitioner. Yet, the Tahsildar had gone ahead and issued the appointment order to the former panchayat ward member on the ground that she was older than the petitioner.
“Therefore, the ninth respondent had influenced politicians and the eighth respondent (Tahsildar) without seeing the merits of the petitioner, mechanically selected the ninth respondent to the post of Village Assistant… It is also clear that after filing the writ petition, the score sheets were corrected by the eighth respondent and produced before this court,” the judge concluded.
Though courts would generally not interfere in the selection process and name the person to be appointed to a particular post, the judge ordered so in the present case in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and after finding that the petitioner was the best among all other contestants to the post. “It is seen that in order to appoint the ninth respondent, the eighth respondent acted contrary to the procedure and law,” he said.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT