Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

N.Jayakumar vs The General Manager Hr on 5 December, 2012

Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu

Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED:  05/12/2012

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

W.P(MD)No.2239 of 2008
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008

N.Jayakumar		.. Petitioner

Vs

The General Manager HR,
Central Office,
Indian Overseas Bank,
No.763, Annasalai,
Chennai - 600 002     .. Respondents



PRAYER

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of  Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to
consider the petitioner for appoint to the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank
under Ex-Servicemen quota.

!For petitioner    .. Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy
^For Respondent    .. Mr.N.A.R.Prasad


:ORDER

Prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank under Ex-Servicemen quota.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Ex-Serviceman and discharged from service of the Indian Air Force on 24.11.1982. The respondent issued a notification inviting application for recruitment to the post of Clerks for 200 vacancies, out of which, 180 vacancies were notified in Tamil Nadu and out of which 18 vacancies were reserved for Ex-Serviceman quota. The petitioner made an application for the same under the Ex-Servicemen quota and appeared for the written examination conducted by the respondent on 22.04.2007. The petitioner was called upon to attend an interview on 08.10.2007 and thereafter, he was not selected to the post. He made a representation on 14.02.2008, seeking for the reason for the non-selection. On 27.02.2008, the petitioner was informed that seven Ex-Servicemen candidates were already selected for the said post. When 18 vacancies were reserved and the petitioner was also eligible for appointment, the respondent did not select him and hence, he had filed the present writ petition.

3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit and stated that notifications were published from 09 to 15 December 2006 for filling up 180 vacancies for Tamil Nadu. 29,356 candidates were appeared for the written test. Out of them, 824 candidates including the petitioner were called for interview. As against 824, 680 candidates appeared for the interview. The cut off marks (including written test and interview) for Ex-Servicemen was 133. The petitioner did not qualify as he got only 108 marks (i.e. 78 out of 200 in written test and 30 out of 35 marks in the interview), whereas the cut off marks fixed for the Ex-Servicemen quota, even after relaxation of the standards, was

126. That apart, even if all the 18 Ex-Servicemen posts were to be filled up based on the total marks they obtained in the written test and the interview irrespective of the level of performance, the petitioner was not entitled to get selected because there were 31 more meritorious candidates ahead of the petitioner in the OBC Ex-Servicemen category itself. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected to the post of Clerk.

4. Heard the learned counsels on either side.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not selected to the post of Clerk even though he got the merits and qualification. On the other hand, a reading of the counter affidavit, with facts and figures disclose that the petitioner got only 108 marks whereas, the cut off marks fixed for the Ex- serviceman quota was 126. Therefore, when the petitioner did not succeed to come within the cut off marks in the written test as well as the interview, he cannot expect him to be appointed to the post, especially, when it is stated in the counter affidavit that 31 more meritorious candidates and 13 candidates in the OBC Ex-Servicemen category alone are ahead of the petitioner.

6. Considering all the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merits in the writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.

skn TO The General Manager HR, Central Office, Indian Overseas Bank, No.763, Annasalai, Chennai - 600 002.