The petitioner filed O.A.No.801 of 1997, seeking to challenge the revisional order of the first respondent, dated 20.12.96. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.30433 of 2006.
2.The petitioner was the resident of Pudukudi Village. The post of Village Servant of the said village became vacant on account of the retirement of one Rathinam, who belonged to the Adi Dravida Community. In order to fill up the vacancy, the Tahsildar of Kudavasal Taluk called for applications. The petitioner and the second respondent made their applications claiming the said post. While the petitioner belonged to the Backward class, the second respondent belonged to the Adi Dravidar Community. The Tahsildar found the petitioner belonging to Kallar Community, which is not represented in the village and the other two posts were held by the Vellalar Community and Adi Dravida community and the village dominated by Kallar Community, which was the majority community in the village, gave the appointment to the petitioner.
3.The second respondent preferred an appeal to the RDO, Nagapattinam. The appellate authority confirmed the appointment by his order dated 9.8.94. Subsequently, the second respondent preferred a revision petition to the first respondent herein by a revision dated 19.9.94. It was contended that the selection made by the Tahsildar was on erroneous grounds and he ought not to have given any preference to the petitioner, which is not prescribed under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Village Servants Service Rules, 1980.
4.The first respondent, by his order, dated 19.9.95 allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the RDO. He directed the appointment of the second respondent on the ground that since everything being equal, the second respondent being a Dalit, can be preferred for the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6270 of 1995 before the Tribunal.
5.The Tribunal set aside the revisional order. In paragraphs 6 and 7of the order, the Tribunal directed as follows:
"6. ...It is for the District Revenue Officer to assess the irrelevant consideration and then pass orders. According to the Rules and other instructions if any and other Government orders, if any, regarding such appointment. As I have already pointed out, the impugned order cannot be sustained and so the matter is to be remitted back to the first respondent, for fresh consideration and passing fresh orders, in the light of the observations made in this order.
7.In view of the above, the application is allowed and the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.65490/94-12, dated 19.9.95 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for passing order, according to rules and in the light of the observations made in this order. He is further directed to pass order within a period of three months. For the said period of three months, the person who is now working as Village Assistant in Pudukkudi village shall continue to work, as Village Assistant."
6.On remand by the Tribunal, the first respondent by the order, dated 20.12.96, once again allowed the revision filed by the second respondent and set aside the order of the Tahsildar, dated 31.7.92 and the confirmation order passed by the RDO, Nagapattinam, dated 9.6.94. He also directed the appointment of the second respondent as a Village Servant. In that order, it was stated that the Secretary to Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, by a letter, dated 10.5.89, had informed that while appointing the Village servants, Adi dravidars can be given preference, if they are majority in number in a village. He also stated that there was no disqualification for the second respondent from being appointed. Apart from that, he found that the second respondent had worked as a temporary Village Servant for one year, whereas the petitioner had worked only for 6 months. Though the petitioner contended that the second respondent was involved in crime No.227/84 at Kudavasal police station and he was arraigned as the third accused, no materials were produced for proving the same. It is against this order, the petitioner filed the O.A. No.801 of 1997 once again before the Tribunal.
7.The petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 25.11.98. He stoutly denied the allegation that the revisional order was passed on communal angle. The further allegation that it was despatched while the first respondent was on an order of transfer was also denied. It was also stated that the second respondent had more experience than the petitioner.
8.The Supreme Court while considering the case of the appointment of a Village Servant, delineated the limits of judicial intervention by the High Court in its recent decision in Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 439. In paragraphs 20, 21, 26 to 28, it has been observed as follows:
"20.The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is basically concerned with the correctness of the decision-making process and not the merit of the decision. It has not been found by the High Court that the Collector in expressing his opinion as regards comparative merit of the appellant vis-a-vis Respondent 1 committed an error in his decision-making process. ...
21.It is, therefore, not a case where the finding of the Collector can be said to be perverse. It has also not been established that the said statutory authority while taking a decision failed to take into consideration the relevant facts or based its decision on extraneous considerations or on irrelevant factors not germane therefor.
....
26.There cannot be any doubt or dispute whatsoever that a writ court could interfere with a finding of fact when the same inter alia is found to be perverse. However, neither any such finding has been arrived at by the High Court nor do we find any and as such the decision of this Court relied upon by Mr.Mahajan in Bhagat Ram v. Stage of H.P. cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in this case.
27.The High Court furthermore failed to take into consideration that while exercising its power of judicial review, it exercises a limited jurisdiction. The court, it is well settled, is ordinarily concerned with the decision-making process and not the merit of the decision.
28.It also cannot be said that the equity lies in favour of Respondent 1. Even otherwise, when respective merit of the candidates is taken into consideration, equity has hardly any role to play."
9.In the present case, the order passed by the Tahsildar (Kudvasal) and the RDO (Nagapattinam) is clearly erroneous. Almost, they have decided the issue on the ground of a non existent communal quota and that the majority community was not represented in the village. However, the first respondent, being the revisional authority had kept in his mind the remit order passed by the Tribunal and took into account the relevant considerations.
10.Therefore, in the light of the above factual matrix as well as the legal precedent set out above, it is not a fit case where this court can grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
vvk To The District Revenue Officer, Nagai Quaid-E-millet District, Nagapattinam