Candidates from adjoining panchayats may be considered only when no qualified, suitable local candidate is available.

A recruitment notification dated 26 March 2018 invited applications for the post of Village Panchayat Secretary in Ammapatti. The petitioner, who claimed to reside within Ammapatti Village Panchayat, applied and attended the interview. The authorities selected the fourth respondent, who resided in a neighbouring village.

The official respondents defended the selection by relying on a Division Bench judgment; the fourth respondent also relied on his service in the post and his higher interview score.

Whether the authorities could select a candidate from a neighbouring Village Panchayat when a qualified candidate residing in Ammapatti was available

Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief setting aside the fourth respondent’s selection and directing her appointment

Rule 5(2)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Village Panchayat Secretaries (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 requires an eligible candidate to reside in the Village Panchayat concerned. Under Rule 5(2)(iii), a candidate from an adjoining Village Panchayat within the block may be considered only if no qualified and suitable candidate residing in the concerned panchayat is available.

The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.A.(MD) No. 1147 of 2024, dated 20 July 2026, which held that eligibility under the local-residence requirement takes priority; comparative suitability cannot justify selecting a neighbouring-panchayat candidate where eligible local applicants are available.

The petitioner was treated as eligible and qualified, having been permitted to participate in the interview, and the authorities did not contend that she lacked the prescribed qualifications.

Because a qualified candidate was available within Ammapatti, the condition allowing consideration of candidates from adjoining panchayats was not met. The fourth respondent’s higher interview score or asserted greater suitability could not cure his failure to satisfy the applicable eligibility sequence. The Division Bench authority supported, rather than undermined, the petitioner’s case.

It directed the official respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner within six weeks of receiving the order. The authorities were also directed to consider the fourth respondent for accommodation in any available vacancy within the same block. No costs were ordered.