WA/2205/2025 of The Principal Secretary to Government Vs B.Kavitha on 25 August 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan J.) The unsuccessful respondents before the Writ Court in WP No.6152 of 2023 are the appellants in the present Writ Appeals.

2. The Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2205 of 2025 has been filed by the respondents 1 to 8 and W.A.No.2548 of 2024 has been filed by the 9th respondent.

3. The 1st respondent in both the Writ Appeals is the writ petitioner who filed the petition in W.P.No.6152 of 2023 seeking a relief of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned appointment order in Na.Ka.31162022/AA2 dated 13.01.2023 issued by the Tahsildar, Thirukkuvalai, (the 8th respondent therein), to quash the appointment of the Village Assistant for Mela Vazhakkari Village (Serial No.1) and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 8 therein to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant of Mela Vazhakkari Village.

4. The brief facts of the case of the writ petitioner is that a notification dated 10.10.2022 was issued for the recruitment of Village Assistant in Nagapattinam District. The writ petitioner/1st respondent herein who holds a

B.C.A. degree, applied for the said post on 12.10.2022 through online. After scrutinizing her application, she was permitted to write examination on 04.12.2022. Having cleared the written examination, she was called for an interview on 27.12.2022. The Interview Committee comprised the Tahsildar, the Deputy Tahsildar and the Special Tahsildar, who are respondents 6 to 8 in the writ petition. Despite the petitioner’s good performance in the interview, the 9th respondent (the appellant in W.A.No.2548 of 2024) was awarded full marks in the interview and was appointed as Village Assistant.

5. The writ petitioner contended that the 9th respondent (the appellant in W.A.No.2548 of 2024) was qualified only with 10th standard, yet was awarded full marks in the interview and selected for the post. Furthermore, the 9th respondent does not belong to Mela Vazhakkari Village. Though there is no bar against appointing a candidate from outside the locality, when a well qualified candidate is very much available in the native village, the 8th respondent ought not to have appointed the 9th respondent that too from an adjacent village. The petitioner also questioned the awarding of marks on various categories and claimed that only for the purpose of giving appointment to the 9th respondent, full marks were awarded in the interview and the respondents 1 to 8 selected the 9th respondent.

6. The respondents 1 to 8 in the writ petition contended that both the writ petitioner and the 9th respondent had scored 80 marks and since the 9th respondent was senior to the writ petitioner, she was selected as Village Assistant and there is no mala fide or partiality in the selection process.

7. The 9th respondent in the Writ Petition contended that she cleared the written examination and qualified for the interview. In the interview, she got full marks due to her performance because of which, she was selected for the post of Village Assistant. She further contended that there is absolutely no bar against appointing candidates from neighbouring villages for the post. Further, the 9th respondent resigned had resigned her position as a Ward Member prior to joining as a Village Assistant. Once the appointment order was issued, the petitioner was no longer entitled to challenge her appointment.

8. Based on the submissions advanced by all parties, the Writ Court, after careful consideration, allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned appointment order issued by the 8th respondent/Tahsildar.

9. The The reasons recorded by the Writ Court for allowing the writ petition are extracted below:

7. The petitioner is a graduate in BCA and she scored very good marks in the 10th standard as well as her higher secondary examination. Whereas the ninth respondent is qualified with only 10th standard and as such, for education qualifications, the petitioner was awarded 10 marks and 9th respondent was awarded 7 marks. The second criteria is driving skills. On perusal of the application submitted by the ninth respondent, she did not produce any driving licence and she categorically stated that she had no licence to drive two wheeler or four wheeler. While being so, on what basis, the eighth respondent awarded five marks to the ninth respondent and four marks to the petitioner is not explained by the eighth respondent. Further, in the criteria of reading skills, the petitioner was awarded three marks in English reading and three marks in Tamil reading. Whereas, the ninth respondent was awarded 5 marks in English reading and 5 marks in Tamil reading. On perusal of answer sheets in the written examination, it shows the skill of the petitioner in writing and the way of answering to the questions. The presentation itself is very neat and the handwriting is also legible and beautiful. Whereas the answer sheet of the ninth respondent shows that she is not capable to write in English and Tamil. Therefore, the marks awarded to the ninth respondent as

(5+5) in the reading skills of Tamil and English is not proper. That apart, finally in the interview, the petitioner was awarded only 5 marks and the ninth respondent was awarded 12 marks. This Court is not able to understand on what basis the petitioner as well as the ninth respondent were awarded marks in the interview by the eighth respondent.

8. On perusal of all the documents which were annexed along with the applications and the answer sheets in the written examination are clear that the petitioner is more suitable candidate to be appointed as Village Assistant than the ninth respondent. That apart, admittedly the ninth respondent was elected as Ward Member in Kilvelur Panchayat and only after selection to the post of Village Assistant, she resigned the post. Therefore, the ninth respondent had influenced politicians and the eighth respondent without seeing the merits of the petitioner, mechanically selected the ninth respondent to the post of Village Assistant. Further, the very same eighth respondent furnished details under Right to Information Act as if the ninth respondent scored marks higher than the petitioner and as such, he was selected to the post of Village Assistant. Whereas on perusal of the counter filed by the very same respondent, revealed that the petitioner and the ninth respondent scored very same 80 marks. However, the ninth respondent is senior to the petitioner, and as such she was appointed to the post of Village Assistant.

9. Thus it is clear that after filing the writ petition, the score sheets were corrected by the eighth respondent and produced before this Court. It is also curious to note that on seeing other applications and written answer sheets of the candidates to the post of Village Assistant, it is clear that they were awarded very meagre marks though more qualified than the ninth respondent and awarded only five marks in the interview irrespective of all candidates except the ninth respondent. Only the ninth respondent was awarded 12 marks in the interview. Except the ninth respondent, no one was awarded more than 5 marks in the interview. It shows that in order to appoint the ninth respondent, the eighth respondent acted contrary to the procedure and law.

10. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 of the eighth respondent is quashed. The eighth respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner, who is the best candidate among other applicants on

perusal of the documents, to the post of Village Assistant, Melavazhakarai Village, Thirukkuvalai Taluk, Nagapattinam District forthwith and report to the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to conduct enquiry with regards to the illegality committed by the eighth respondent while recruiting the ninth respondent to the post of Village Assistant and also to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

10. We heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

11. In the counter affidavit filed by the 8th respondent before the Writ Court, the marks awarded to the writ petitioner and the 9th respondent were extracted. The said tabulation is extracted hereunder: S. No Criteria Maximum B.Kavitha / writ petitioner L.Lavanya /9th respondent

Education Qualifications

Driving Skills

Native village

Written skills

Reading skills

Interview marks

Total

12. From the above tabulation, it is very clear that the 9th respondent (the appellant in W.A.No.2548 of 2024) was awarded 12 marks in the interview, whereas the writ petitioner was awarded only 5 marks. Further, despite not possessing a driving licence, the 9th respondent was awarded one extra mark compared to the writ petitioner. Similarly, for reading skills, the 9th respondent was awarded two more marks in each language than the writ petitioner.

13. The writ petitioner is a graduate in B.C.A. and she has secured good marks in 10th and Higher Secondary Examinations. On the other hand, the 9th respondent is qualified only up to 10th standard. The official respondents have failed to provide any proper explanation regarding the criteria or basis on which the 9th respondent’s reading skills were evaluated.

14. The Writ Court while deciding the issue, called for the entire files and found various discrepancies in awarding the marks to the 9th respondent. How the 9th respondent secured 80 marks is a highly questionable issue. It was only after a thorough perusal of the entire records, the Writ Court concluded that the writ petition was liable to be allowed.

15. Another compelling reason for the Court's interference emerged when the writ petitioner sought for the details regarding the marks scored by the 9th respondent as well as the writ petitioner through Right to Information Act (RTI), the 8th respondent has furnished the details stating that the 9th respondent scored higher marks than the writ petitioner and only because of which, she was selected for the post of Village Assistant. However, in the counter, the respondents 1 to 8 claimed that both the 9th respondent and the writ petitioner scored equal marks and only because of seniority, the 9th respondent was appointed for the post.

16. Based on the discrepancies between the counter and the reply provided by the official respondents under the RTI, the Writ Court found that the score sheet was corrected by the 8th respondent. All these aspects in totality explained that all is not well in the appointment process and especially the fact that the appointment of the 9th respondent is not according to the rules.

17. In view of the above, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. The order of the Writ Court is confirmed with respect to the cancellation of the appointment of the 9th respondent and the disciplinary action against the 8th respondent alone. However, the direction issued by the Writ Court regarding appointment of the writ petitioner is concerned, the same is set aside. We direct the official concerned to issue a fresh notification for the said post of Village Assistant of Mela Vazhakkari

Village, Thirukkuvalai Taluk, Nagapattinam District, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to complete the selection process.

18. With the above observations and modifications, we dismiss both the Writ Appeals, filed by the respondents 1 to 8 as well as the 9th respondent. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 03-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA-2

To

1. The Principal Secretary To Government Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. Geroge, Chennai-09.

2. The District Collector Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.

3. The District Revenue Officer o/o.The District Revenue Officer, Nagapattinam,

4. The Commissioner Of Revenue Administration o/o.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-05.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer o/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam.

6. The Special Tahsildar social Security Scheme, Thirukkuvalai, Nagapattinam District.

7. The Deputy Tahsildar (head Quarters) Tahsildar Office, Thirukkuvalai, Nagapattinam District.

8. The Tahsildar O/o.Tahsildar Office, Thirukkuvalai, Nagapattinam District.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J. KSA-2 Judgment made in WA Nos. 2205 of 2025 and 2548 of 2024 03-09-2026