Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a writ appeal filed by an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Village Assistant in Alangudi village, Thiruvarur District. The appellant had participated in a recruitment process initiated by the Tahsildar, Valangaiman Taluk, under a notification, and challenged the selection of the fourth respondent, who resided within the same taluk but not within the same village. The appellant contended that the recruitment notification gave preference to candidates residing in the same village and that only if no candidate from that village was available could candidates from other villages within the taluk be considered. The fourth respondent, K. Murali, was selected despite being from another village within the taluk because he secured higher aggregate marks. The appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by a single judge, leading to the present writ appeal. The Division Bench examined the government order G.O.Ms.No.574 dated 17.10.2020, which laid down common guidelines for appointment to the post of Village Assistant to eliminate favouritism. The guidelines prescribed a marks-based selection process with criteria including educational qualification, riding/driving skill, reading and writing skill, nativity, and interview. For nativity, candidates born in the village for which recruitment was made were awarded 25 marks, while those born within the taluk limits were awarded 20 marks. The court noted that the appellant was awarded 25 marks for nativity while the fourth respondent was awarded 20 marks, but the appellant scored a total of 79 marks whereas the fourth respondent scored 87 marks. The court held that the preference given to same-village candidates was already reflected in the higher nativity marks, and no additional exclusive preference could be claimed. Accepting the appellant's argument would result in selecting an unqualified person merely because of residence, thereby neutralizing merit. The court emphasized that equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate and relative merit must be assessed. An exclusive priority for same-village candidates would infringe the rights of other meritorious candidates from other villages within the taluk and would be opposed to public policy. The court also considered the appellant's reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill's case regarding the binding nature of recruitment rules, but found no violation because the selection adhered to the government order guidelines and no rules were changed after the process began. Ultimately, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, affirmed the single judge's order dated 27.06.2023 in W.P.No.3020 of 2023, and imposed no costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Village Assistant Recruitment - Preference for Same Village Candidate is Weightage, Not Exclusive Criterion - Not mentioned - The recruitment notification awarded higher nativity marks to candidates from the same village (25 marks) and 20 marks for candidates within the taluk. The appellant, from the same village, secured 79 marks while the selected fourth respondent from another village in the same taluk secured 87 marks. Held that once higher nativity marks are given, no additional exclusive priority can be claimed; merit must be assessed with equal opportunity (Paras 4-7). B) Constitutional Law - Equal Opportunity in Public Employment - Equal Opportunity Mandate - Not mentioned - The court observed that equal opportunity is a constitutional mandate and relative merits are to be assessed for selection to public posts. Granting exclusive priority to same-village candidates would infringe the rights of other meritorious candidates from other villages within the taluk and deny equal opportunity in public employment. Held that such exclusive priority is opposed to public policy (Paras 6). C) Administrative Law - Binding Nature of Recruitment Notification - Rules of Game Cannot Be Changed - Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 - The appellant relied on this principle, contending that the terms of the recruitment notification were binding and the government order G.O.Ms.No.574 dated 17.10.2020 was not mentioned in the notification, hence not binding. The court observed there was no dispute on legal principles but found that the selection had been made in accordance with the government order guidelines, and no rules were changed after the process commenced. Held that the writ order suffered no infirmity (Paras 3-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection of a candidate from another village within the same Taluk to the post of Village Assistant is vitiated when the recruitment notification gave preference to candidates residing in the same village.
Final Decision
Writ appeal dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed. The order dated 27.06.2023 in W.P.No.3020 of 2023 was affirmed.
Law Points
- rules of game cannot be changed once selection process commenced
- terms of recruitment notification binding
- preference to same village candidate is weightage not exclusive
- selection must be merit-based with equal opportunity
- G.O.Ms.No.574 guidelines for Village Assistant prescribe marks for nativity
- candidate from same village cannot claim exclusive consideration
