Madras High Court
M.Velmurugan vs The Chairman
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan, P.Velmurugan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on
14.3.2018
Delivered on
24.4.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.A.No.1642 OF 2015
M.VELMURUGAN ... appellant
Vs
1 THE CHAIRMAN
CHENNAI PORT TRUST
CHENNAI - 01.
2 THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
(APPOINTING AUTHORITY)
CHENNAI PORT TRUST
CHENNAI - 01.
3 THE STANDING SELECTION COMMITE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CHENNAI PORT TRUST
CHENNAI -01.
4 V.M.TAMILSELVI
5 SRI.S.BABU
6 SRI M.MANOHARAN ... respondents
Appeal filed against the order passed by this Court dated 24.8.2015 in W.P.No.16535 of 2010.
For appellant : Mr.T.S.Rajamohan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, for R-1 to R-3
Mr.K.Sellathurai, for R-4 to R-6
J U D G M E N T
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
The Chennai Port Trust conducted interview for the in-service candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). There was no written test. All the candidates secured equal marks under the categories qualification and experience. The Selection Committee without any guidelines, awarded marks under the category, personality, smartness and performance and by giving more marks, tilted the balance in favour of few and selected them. Similar selection dated 11 June 2008 for the post of Diesel Loco driver in Chennai Port Trust was set aside by the Division Bench by judgment dated 8 September 2010 in W.A.No.1403, 1878/2009 and W.P.No.22070/2009, on the ground that marks given arbitrarily with a view to tilt the balance in favour of the selected candidates. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.31077 to 31079 of 2010, taking into account the initiation of fresh selection process.
2. The selection in the subject case, finalized by giving excess marks to few candidates arbitrarily on 21 February 2009, is liable to be set aside as the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment dated 8 September 2010 and the order dated 14 December 2010 in SLP 31077 to 31079/2010.
The facts:-
3. The Chennai Port Trust called for applications from Junior Engineers, Civil Engineering Department for appointment to the four vacant posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on redeployment basis. The appellant, the respondents 4 to 6 and few other junior engineers submitted applications through proper channel.
4. The selection was by holding interview. There was no written test. The total marks was 30, and it was divided equally for (i) qualification; (ii) experience; (iii) personality, smartness and performance.
5. The appellant and others attended the interview on 21 February 2009.
6. There was no difficulty for awarding marks for qualification and experience as it given based on actual qualification and the total number of years of service. There was no prescribed guidelines for awarding 10 marks for personality, smartness and performance.
7. Though the Selection Committee was formed with six members, only five members constituted the Board for conducting interview on 21 February 2009.
8. The members have not given marks individually. The total marks alone were shown out of 10 for personality, smartness and performance.
9. The appellant and the other candidates secured very same marks for qualification and experience. However, the appellant secured only six marks out of ten for the category personality, smartness and performance. Others who got more marks under this category were selected.
10. The select list was unsuccessfully challenged in W.P.No.16535 of 2010. The order passed by the writ court is under challenge in this intra court appeal.
Submissions:-
11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that marks were awarded for oral interview without any guidelines just to tilt the balance in favour of few employees for reasons best known to the Chennai Port Trust. The illegality of the very same selection process was commented by the Division Bench earlier in W.A.No.1403 of 2009 and the selection was quashed. Similar is the present case. The issue is therefore covered.
12. The learned counsel for the Chennai Port Trust submitted that after the judgment in W.A.No.1403 of 2009 dated 8 September 2010, the Chennai Port Trust framed guidelines for selection and now it is not on the basis of interview alone. According to the learned counsel, this selection was prior to the judgment dated 8 September 2010 in W.A.No.1403 of 2009.
13. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 justified the selection by contending that respondents 4 to 6 got more marks in the oral interview than the appellant. The selection was therefore fair.
Discussion:-
14. The legality and correctness of the selection to the post of Assistant Engineer on redeployment basis is challenged mainly on the ground that marks were awarded in an arbitrary manner without guidelines, and with the object of tilting the balance in favour of a chosen few.
15. The selection list contain the marks awarded to the candidates under different category. It reads thus:-
Sl. No. Name & Designation Date of Birth Community Qualification Experience Marks awarded Total Remarks Qualification (10) Experience (10) Personality, Smartness and Performance 10 (30) 1 M.Velmurugan 15.7.66 OC BE(C) PGDPR, PGDPM & IR, PDDMM Junior Engineer (C) from 14.8.1997 10 10 5 25 2 S.P.Sakthivel, J.E.Gr.I 2.6.69 OBC B.E.(C) P.G.Dip.Mtis management Junior Engineer (C) from 21.871997. Deputed as Asst. Marine Surveyor, SCL from 26.1.2006 10 10 9 29 Selected 3 C.K.Vaidyanathan, J.E.Gr.I 18.1.73 OC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 24.7.1997 10 10 6 26 4 A.Bothuraja, J.E.Gr.I 11.6.72 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 21.7.97. Deputed as Asst. Engineer to SCL from 15.3.2006 10 10 6 26 5 D.Muthazhagan J.E. 12.5.70 SC B.E.(C), MBA Junior Engineer (C) from 28.7.1997 Deputed as Asst. Engineer to NMA from 1.2.2007 10 10 5 25 6 P.Baskaran, JE 21.12.72 OC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 24.7.1997, Deputed as Asst. Engineer to SCL from 10.3.2006 10 10 6 26 7 C.Prabakaran, J.E. 20.1.75 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 17.7.1997 10 10 6 26 8 G.Gnanasekaran, JE 27.4.73 OBC A.M.I.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 22.7.1997 10 10 5 25 9 R.Nagarajan, JE 5.8.67 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 22.7.1997 10 10 4 24 10 K.Thanasekar, JE 21.10.72 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 17.7.1997 10 10 5 25 11 S.Srinivasan JE
16.6.77 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 24.7.1997 10 10 6 26 12 S.Babu, JE 28.10.68 OBC A.M.I.E. (C) Junior Engineer (C) from 28.7.1997 10 10 8 28 Selected 13 G.M.Satish Kumar, JE 9.5.70 OBC B.E.(C). MBA Junior Engineer (C) from 23.7.1997 10 10 5 25 14 D.Muthu JE 4.2.72 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 22.7.1997 10 10 5 25 15 V.M.Tamil selvi, JE 25.6.69 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 22.7.1997 10 10 8.5 28.5 Selected 16 R.Pulendran, JE 7.3.68 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 29.7.1997 10 10 5 25 17 M.Ramar, JE 25.5.72 OBC B.E.(C), MBA Junior Engineer (C) from 30.7.1997 10 10 6 26 18 N.Rajasree JE 1.6.73 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 31.7.1997 10 10 6.25 26.25 Panel 19 T.Krishnakumar, JE 18.4.69 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 28.7.1997 10 10 5 25 20 K.Rajendiran JE 5.6.69 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 23.7.1997 10 10 3.5 23.5 21 S.Rajamani, JE 14.5.69 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 28.7.1997 10 10 5.5 25.5 22 K.Lochana, JE 5.11.68 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 23.7.1997 10 10 7 27 Panel 23 R.Senthilkumaran JE 15.6.67 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 30.7.1997 10 10 5.5 25.5 24 A.Thangamani, JE 3.6.1970 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 30.7.1997 10 10 6 26 25 K.Selvaraj JE 17.4.70 OBC B.E.(C), PGDMM Junior Engineer (C) from 22.7.1997 10 10 6.5 26.5 Panel 26 N.Devendran JE 18.3.76 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 31.7.1997. Deputed to SCL as Asst. Engineer, from 1.4.2006 10 10 6 26 27 M.Suresh JE 18.5.69 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 31.7.97 10 10 6 26 28 M.Manoharan JE 2.5.70 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from13.8.1997 10 10 7.5 27.5 Selected 29 B.Santhanagopalakrishnan, JE 21.5.71 OC B.E.(C) M.E. (Structures) Junior Engineer (C) from 23.6.1998 30 T.K.Parthasarathy, JE 25.7.75 OC B.E.(C) M.E. (Structures) Junior Engineer (C) from 26.6.1998 10 10 7.25 27.25 Panel 31 K.Ezhilarasi, JE 5.4.75 SC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 26.6.1998 10 10 6 26 32 T.K.Raghu JE 9.8.70 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 19.6.1998. Presently deputed to SCL as Assistant Engineer 10 10 5 25 33 K.Suresh JE 18.11.72 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 30.7.1998 10 10 6 26 34 C.Chandrasekar, JE Gr.I, EDLB 30.3.75 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 7.1.1998. Deputed to SCL as Asst. Engineer (C) from 8.9.2007 10 10 5.5 25.5 35 L.Sivashankaran, JE Gr.I, EDLB 6.11.70 OC B.E.(C) MBA Junior Engineer (C) from 12.1.1998 10 10 5.5 25.5 36 S.Rukmani, JE EDLB 22.2.73 OBC B.E.(C) Junior Engineer (C) from 7.4.1998 10 10 5.5 25.5
16. The learned counsel for the Chennai Port Trust on verification of the file and after taking instruction, admitted the factual position that there was no guideline for awarding marks under the third category. It is also an admitted position that the members of the selection committee have not given marks individually to the candidates.
17. The Chennai Port Trust has been conducting selection in this arbitrary manner for a long time till the judgment in W.A.No.1403 of 2009. Similar selection, giving marks for oral interview, was the subject matter in the earlier litigation in W.A.No.1403 of 2009.
18. The Division Bench allowed the appeal in W.A.No.1403 of 2009 and quashed the selection to the post of Diesel Loco Driver by holding that in the oral interview, without any guideline, marks were awarded arbitrarily with the sole aim of tilting the balance in favour of a few candidates. The judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The issue is therefore covered.
19. The selection conducted by the Chennai Port Trust prior to 8 September 2010 was by holding interview by giving marks for personality, smartness and performance. We are informed that the Chennai Port Trust after the judgment in W.A.No.1403 of 2009 has changed the selection procedure.
20. The selection in question was made along with the selection, which was quashed in W.A.No.1403 of 2009. The issue is therefore covered by the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench. We are in respectful agreement with the findings given, and the law laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1403 of 2009.
21. We have perused the selection file in its entirety. We are convinced that marks were awarded arbitrarily under the category personality, smartness and performance, with a view to favour the selected candidates. The impugned selection is therefore liable to be set aside.
22. The select list dated 21 February 2009 is quashed. We direct the Chennai Port Trust to conduct a fresh selection by adopting a fair and transparent process without any element of arbitrariness. The selection process should be confined to the 36 candidates who took part in the selection on 21 February 2009. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
23. The order dated 24 August 2015 in W.P.No.16535 of 2015 is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the selection.
24. For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the intra court appeal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.) (P.VELMURUGAN, J.) 24.4.2018 Index: Yes/no tar To 1 THE CHAIRMAN CHENNAI PORT TRUST CHENNAI - 01.
2 THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (APPOINTING AUTHORITY) CHENNAI PORT TRUST CHENNAI - 01.
3 THE STANDING SELECTION COMMITE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CHENNAI PORT TRUST CHENNAI -01.
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
and P.VELMURUGAN, J.
(tar) P.D. Judgment in W.A.No.1642 OF 2015 24.4.2018