Madras High Court
Mohammed Abdullah vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 8 December, 2017
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.12.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P.(MD)No.12260 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 Mohammed Abdullah ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Represented by its Chairman, Having his office at Oomanthoorar Industrial Estate, Annasalai Chennai. 2.I.Nagoorkani 3.S.K.Hameedha Banu ... Respondents (R2 & R3 impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 07.11.2016 in WMP(MD)No.15209/2016) Order Reserved on : 22.11.2017 Order pronounced on : 08.12.2017 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 relating to the list published by the respondent regarding Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II, dated 18.09.2010 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondent to call the petitioner for oral examination. !For Petitioner : Mr.Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates ^For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthil for R1 No appearance for R2 & R3 :ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned list published by the respondent Commission for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II dated 18.09.2010 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to call the petitioner for oral examination.
2.The respondent Service Commission called for recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II, in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service for the year 2006-08 by notification dated 24.02.2009 to fill up 76 vacancies. For the said post, candidates should possess bachelor degree in engineering and experience of working both in petrol and diesel engines under a recognised/approved/certified by the Transport Commissioner/Director of the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department. Since the petitioner possesses all the qualification, he applied for the said post. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared for written examination. Though the petitioner answered well in the written examination, he was not called for oral examination as the petitioner's name did not figure in the list published for oral examination. It is the case of the respondent Service Commission that the experience certificate of the petitioner obtained from Vincent Auto Garage is not valid as the said Garage was closed. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the said Auto Garage was in existence, when he obtained the said certificate and during the year, 1999-2000, for the previous recruitment process, the petitioner submitted the same Certificate and that was also accepted by the respondent Department. However, for the present recruitment process, the respondent Department found that the Certificate is invalid and as such, it is stated that the entire procedure is arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.
3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner's name was not found in the list published by the respondent Service Commission, he sought information under the Right to Information Act, in which, it is stated that the petitioner's application has been admitted provisionally for the recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II and the same was rejected subsequently, as decided by the committee constituted for the purpose, as he had not possessed the workshop experience as prescribed thereon. Thus, the learned counsel, attacking the said reason assigned in the information furnished by the respondent Service Commission, submitted that the petitioner has furnished the workshop experience certificate from the workshop, which was approved by the Government. However, by assigning some erroneous reason, the petitioner was not selected. Thus, he sought for quashing of the list published by the respondent Service Commission.
4. But the learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner was one among the candidates, who applied for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II and he was permitted to appear for written examination based on the qualifications. However, on verification, it was found that the petitioner has not produced any Salary Register, Attendance Register pertaining to workshop experience in the Vincent Auto Garage and the said Garage was closed and hence, the workshop experience possessed by the petitioner could not be accepted and the application of the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, based on the committee's decision, the petitioner was not selected and his application was rejected. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the rejection order passed by the respondent Service Commission. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent service commission submitted that now all the candidates were already appointed for the entire vacancies and nothing survives in the writ petition.
5. Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I have carefully gone through the records available.
6. At the outset, I find that the selection is pertaining to the year 2006-08 and almost 10 years have lapsed. The petitioner candidature was rejected based on the committee's decision. At the time of filing the present writ petition, there is no interim order. Moreover, now all the 76 candidates were appointed and they have been working for the past eight years. That apart, the petitioner has not impleaded the selected candidates in the present writ petition. Therefore, at this length of time, I am of the opinion, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. The rejection of his candidature is based on the committee's report and only if there is any malafide motive in the decision of the report of the committee, this Court can interfere. However, there is no malafide motive as alleged. Therefore, I am of the opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Having his office at Oomanthoorar Industrial Estate, Annasalai Chennai.
.