Madras High Court
R.Muthukumar vs The Commissioner on 7 February, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P(MD)No.7431 of 2012
and
MP(MD)No.1 of 2012
R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service,
Chennai ? 6.
2.The Employment Officer,
District Employment Office,
Pudukottai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the order of the second respondent in his proceedings
Aa3/2130/2012, dated 09.05.2012 and quash the same as illegal, consequently
directing the second respondent to sponsor the name of the petitioner for
being appointed as Veterinary Inspector in Pudukkottai District vacant in the
department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service by the first respondent
in the current recruitment year.
!For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
^For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman,
Special Government Pleader
:ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records pertaining to the order of the second respondent dated 09.05.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to sponsor the name of the writ petitioner for being appointed as Veterinary Inspector, Pudhukottai District, which is vacant.
2.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner strenuously contended that the writ petitioner is entitled to be sponsored for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Inspector in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science. The writ petitioner registered his name in the District Employment Exchange on 20.06.1989. Thereafter he had completed Higher Secondary School in the year 1991. The petitioner further completed B.Sc.,Degree in Physics. After completion of his under graduation, the petitioner had updated his employment registration.
3.The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was periodically renewing his employment registration. However, the respondents have not followed the employment seniority during the earlier recruitment process and appointed the candidates who have registered their names after the writ petitioner.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is of an opinion that the age limit as stipulated in the impugned order is not applicable to the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner possess, higher qualification of B.Sc.,Degree in Physics and therefore the age limit as prescribed in the impugned order cannot have any application for participating in the selection process to the post of Veterinary Inspector.
5.The learned Special Government Pleader opposed the contentions of the writ petitioner by stating that every post is governed by its own rules and regulations and the rules relating to age, educational qualification and rule of reservation are to be followed while undertaking the process of selection. The writ petitioner is aged about 43 years as of now and therefore he is overaged and he is not eligible to participate in the process of selection.
6.Considering the arguments as advanced by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, this Court is of an opinion that appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right. Mere registration of name in the employment exchange will not confer any right to issue any direction for sponsoring the writ petitioner's name. The employment registration is a facility provided by the State for the purpose of providing equal opportunities in public employment. Seniority in the employment exchanges are to be followed category wise and community wise and other criteria are also followed. Mere registration of name in the employment exchange will not confer any right on the candidates either to seek directions to sponsor or to seek any appointment. All appointments are to be made only under the constitutional schemes and by following the recruitment rules in force.
7.Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. The rule of reservation is to be followed scrupulously while undertaking the process of selection. This being the criteria to be followed, the very relief as such sought for in this writ petition to direct the respondents to sponsor the name of the writ petitioner is absolutely a misconceived one.
8.Be that it may, what this Court has to consider is whether the writ petitioner is overaged or not, has to be decided by the competent authorities, whenever the process of selection and recruitment are undertaken. The writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in the process of selection, when ever any notification is issued or list of names are called from the employment exchanges, for the purpose of appointment. If at all the competent authorities propose to invite the list, the second respondent employment exchange is bound to sponsor the names of the eligible candidates in accordance with the seniority in employment registration and there cannot be any violation of the rules in force.
9.This being the factum to be considered, this Court is of an opinion that the direction sought for in this writ petition to sponsor the name of the writ petitioner cannot be granted. If any notification is issued in respect of the recruitment to the post of Veterinary Inspector, then the writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in accordance with the rules in force. This Court wishes the writ petitioner to secure public employment only by his hard efforts.
10.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, MP(MD)No.1 of 2012 is closed.
To
1.The Commissioner, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Service, Chennai ? 6.
2.The Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Pudukottai District.
.