Madras High Court
M.J.R.Sivanesan … vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 16 September, 2022
Author: P.D. Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu
W.P. No. 25765 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 25765 of 2015
and
W.M.P. No. 34331 of 2016
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2015
M.J.R.Sivanesan … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by
The Chief Secretary to the Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Directorate for the Rehabilitation
of the Differently Abled Persons
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to the Government,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Deputy Director/ Principal,
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Labour and Employment Department,
Alandur Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4. M.Venkatesan,
Workshop Assistant,
Government Industrial Training Institute,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Third Respondent to
appoint the Petitioner to the post of Workshop Assistant in the Government
Industrial Training Institute, Ambattur, Chennai – 98 or in any other Institute as
per the Petitioner's representation dated 16.12.2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P. No. 25765 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mrs. S.R.Meenal
For Respondents : Mr. V.Ravi,
Special Government Pleader
(for R1 to R3)
Mr. C.P.Sivamohan (for R4)
ORDER
Heard Mrs. S.R.Meenal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. V.Ravi, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First to Third Respondents and Mr. C.P.Sivamohan, Learned Counsel for the Fourth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Petitioner, who is a differently abled person and who holds National Trade Certificate dated 01.07.1998 from the National Council for Vocational Training and has been registered with the employment exchange, had not been selected in the interview conducted on 17.02.2014 for the post of Workshop Assistant in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Ambattur. In that backdrop, he has filed this Writ Petition for directing the Third Respondent to appoint him to the said post as per his representation dated 16.12.2014 in that regard.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 W.P. No. 25765 of 2015
3. In response to the various contentions raised by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition, the explanation of the Third Respondent for the same has been stated in the Counter-Affidavit dated 28.01.2016, which are extracted in the tabular statement below:-
S. Contentions of the Petitioner Explanation of the Third No. Respondent
(i) The action of the Third Respondent in The rights and claims of the Petitioner selecting the Fourth Respondent for the post were never overlooked by the of Workshop Assistant overlooking the Committee as falsely alleged by him.
claim of the Petitioner is arbitrary and against the mandates of Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995.
(ii) The Third Respondent has failed to see that As this post of Workshop Assistant was the Petitioner is handicapped and that he not reserved for persons with different ought to have been appointed especially abilities, the claim of the Petitioner that since he is better qualified than the Fourth in-spite of being differently-abled, he Respondent. was overlooked for appointment is baseless and misleading.
(iii) The Third Respondent had erred in stating The Petitioner avows that he was not that the Fourth Respondent had obtained called for skill test and no test was more marks than the Petitioner in the conducted for him. But, in his interview and the skill test when the representation under RTI Act, he had Petitioner was not called for the skill test at demanded the marks obtained by him all and no test was conducted for him. and the Fourth Respondent. Hence, without attending the interview, he https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 W.P. No. 25765 of 2015 S. Contentions of the Petitioner Explanation of the Third No. Respondent could not demand for the marks of himself and the contesting Respondent.
Therefore, the Petitioner is trying to mislead the Court by making false allegation that no test was conducted for him. The Petitioner had scored 51 marks in total in the interview.
(iv) The Third Respondent had omitted to note The Petitioner had failed to understand that the Petitioner is entitled to age that the Fourth Respondent, who relaxation as a physically handicapped performed better in the interview held person and that if he misses this opportunity, on 27.02.2014 was selected and he was he would not be called for any other post and within the qualifying age norms as would also become age barred. fixed for the post of Workshop Assistant. The need to apply the provision of age relaxation for appointment applies to over aged candidates if they are selected in the interview. As the Petitioner is not selected, these provisions shall not apply. The Petitioner fails to understand that he is still eligible for age relaxation since he comes under differently-abled category.
(v) The Third Respondent ought to have seen The Petitioner fails to understand that that reservation for handicapped persons is under 200 point roster system, there are mandatory and that it cannot be said that specific reservations for every category https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 W.P. No. 25765 of 2015 S. Contentions of the Petitioner Explanation of the Third No. Respondent there is no reservation of this post. of differently-abled candidates. As this vacancy was not falling under such category, the sponsored candidates will be treated equal as it is done so by this Respondent. Only the candidate who performed better in the skill test and interview has been selected by the Committee.
(vi) The Third Respondent ought to have seen It is submitted that there are no that the Petitioner belongs to a backward provisions for award of weightage for class and that he is very much senior in employment exchange seniority in Employment Exchange Registration. recruitment for the post of Workshop Assistant.
(vii) The Third Respondent had grievously erred It is also submitted that recruitment of in giving a go by the mandatory provisions Workshop Assistant in Government of various statutes. ITI, Ambattur was done by applying statutory provisions and related rules. They were followed strictly so that right candidate is selected.
(viii) The Third Respondent himself being the The Petitioner fails to understand that member of High Level Committee for he cannot be appointed as Workshop monitoring the employment of handicapped Assistant in the trade of Mechanic persons ought to have placed the Petitioner Motor Vehicle reserved for BC Non in the vacant post. Priority Category unless he performs well in the interview. Being a differently-abled will not debar a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 W.P. No. 25765 of 2015 S. Contentions of the Petitioner Explanation of the Third No. Respondent candidate to be appointed as Workshop Assistant. As the Petitioner had not performed well in the interview, he was not selected by the Committee.
As the submissions of the Third Respondent deserve acceptance, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the selection of the Fourth Respondent to the post of Workshop Assistant in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Ambattur.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner lastly made a fervent plea that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India -vs-
National Federation of the Blind [(2013) 10 SCC 772] relating to the reservation of posts for persons with disabilities had not been followed while making the selection in this case. The relevant passages from that authoritative pronouncement is extracted below:
“55. In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 W.P. No. 25765 of 2015 55.1. We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate order modifying the OM dated 29-12-2005 and the subsequent OMs consistent with this Court's order within three months from the date of passing of this judgment.
55.2. We hereby direct the “appropriate Government” to compute the number of vacancies available in all the “establishments” and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default.
55.3. The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the departments/public sector undertakings/government companies declaring that the non-observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non-obedience and the Nodal Officer in department/public sector undertakings/government companies, responsible for the proper strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities, be departmentally proceeded against for the default.” The Government of Tamil Nadu has to necessarily carry out the statutory obligation of identifying the posts for differently abled persons while making https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P. No. 25765 of 2015 appointments. Though the appointment of the Fourth Respondent has not been disturbed in this Writ Petition, it is made clear that if the Petitioner has any grievance relating to non-implementation of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in that regard, he is not precluded from working out his rights in that regard before the proper forum in the manner recognized by law.
6. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
No costs.
16.09.2022 skr Index: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy by 14.10.2022.
To
1. The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, The Directorate for the Rehabilitation of the Differently Abled Persons Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 W.P. No. 25765 of 2015
3. The Deputy Director/ Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Labour and Employment Department, Alandur Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 W.P. No. 25765 of 2015 P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
skr W.P. No. 25765 of 2015 16.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10