Madras High Court
S.S. Ayyanar vs The Commissioner on 3 January, 2022
Author: S. Srimathy
Bench: S. Srimathy
WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SRIMATHY
W.P(MD).No. 10447 of 2014 and
MP(MD).No.1 of 2014
WMP(MD).Nos. 17040 and 17041 of 2018
S.S. Ayyanar :Petitioner
..vs..
1.The Commissioner,
Virudhunagar Municipality,
Virudhunagar.
2.The District Employment Officer,
District Employment Office,
Virudhunagar.
3.S. Suthanthiram : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating
to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1/956/2013, dated
02.01.2014 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to sponsor the
petitioner's name and consequently direct the 1st respondent to select and
appoint the petitioner to the post of sanitary supervisor within the time
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. A. Sivaji
For R1 : Mr. Muthu Geethayan
For R2 : Mr. D. Sachi Kumar
Additional Advocate General
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed to quash proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1/956/2013, dated 02.01.2014 and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to sponsor the petitioner's name and consequently direct the 1st respondent to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of sanitary supervisor within the time stipulated by this Court.
2. The first respondent Commissioner, Virudhunagar Municipality initiated the recruitment process for the post of Sanitary Supervisor by getting the list of candidates from the second respondent herein. Since the petitioner's name was not sponsored the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. According to the petitioner he is senior to the third respondent, the petitioner's date of birth is 15.05.1985 and the third 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014 respondent date of birth is 26.01.1987. The petitioner's contention is he ought to be considered under prior category since he has inter-caste marriage certificate and he had also requisite qualification. However, the third respondent is not having adequate educational qualification since he is having SSLC qualification. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 and he obtained information under the Right to Information Act and it was found the third respondent is coming within the jurisdiction Rosalpaatti. Therefore, the third respondent is not coming under the zone of consideration at all.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter stating the proceedings, dated 16.08.2013 to sponsor the list of candidates from the employment exchange based on the roaster viz., GTGL, MBCGL, SCAGL. The second respondent vide proceedings dated 30.10.2013 has sponsored the names as per the roaster. Based on the above list the entire paper was placed before the appointment committee on 02.01.2014 under the category of SCAGL. The contention of the first respondent is that the third respondent is falling under the category of SCAGL and the writ petitioner's community comes under the category of MBC. Therefore, the challenge in 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014 the Writ Petition is not maintainable and he is not an aggrieved person. The non sponsoring of the petitioner by the second respondent is not the fault of the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
4. The second respondent has not filed any counter. The third respondent is not represented by any counsel.
5. Heard the learned counsel for appearing for the parties and perused the records available on record.
6. On perusing the typed set of papers filed by the first respondent along with counter it is seen that the third respondent comes under SCAGL. However, the first respondent has stated the recruitment process was initiated for the following post which is evident from their letter dated 16.08.2013. “ghh;it 1 y; fz;Ls;s fbjj;jpy; tpUJefh; efuhl;rpapy; fhypahf cs;s gzpaplq;fisg; g+h;j;jp nra;a mDkjpj;J cj;jutplg;gl;Ls;sJ. mjd;gb fPNo fz;Ls;s gl;baypd;gb cs;s gzpaplq;fis g+h;j;jp nra;tjw;Fhpa taJ tuk;G kw;Wk; fy;tpj; jFjpAs;s egh;fspd; gl;baypid mDg;gp 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014 itf;Fk;gb fdpTld; Nfl;Lf;nfhs;fpNwd;. NkYk; ghh;it 2 y; fz;Ls;s murhizapd; efy; kw;Wk; ,e;efuhl;rpapd; thh;L vz;1 Kjy; 36 tiuAs;s njUf;fspd; gl;bay; jahh;
nra;J ,j;Jld; ,izj;jDg;gg;gLfpwJ.
1. tUtha; cjtpahsh; : 1
2. gzp Ma;th; : 1
3. efuikg;G Ma;thsh; : 3
4. Jg;GuT gzp Nkw;ghh;itahsh; : 3
------------
8and the second respondent has furnished the break up number of post of non priority, differently abled as per 3% reservation and Tamil Medium as per 20% Reservation for the post of Sanitary supervisors. It is seen from that breakup three post is vacant and the first post is allotted to SCAGL, the second post is allotted to MBC GL and the 3rd post is allotted to GTGL as on date. It is submitted only SCAGL has been appointed and the remaining 2 post was not appointed. The second respondent has called for the list of MBC GL also and the second respondent has sponsored five names viz., R. Chitra, R. Murugan, A. Manikandan, P. Santhanam, S. Satheeshkumar. Admittedly, in the said list the petitioner's name is not there. On comparing with the said list under MBC (General Category) the 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014 petitioner's date of birth is 15.05.1985. But the proceedings sponsored under MBC (General Category) are seniors to the petitioner. Therefore, the employment exchange has not sponsored the petitioner's name. Since according to the seniority list, under MBC (General Category) the persons who were born until 1979 alone were sponsored.
7. From the above details it would be evident the petitioner ought to wait until his seniority comes up.
8. However, for that recruitment purpose the first respondent ought to have called the names from the general public through paper publication. In Excise Superintendent Malkapatanam Vs K.B.N. Visweshwar Rao & others reported in 1996 (6) SCC 216 and in Hargopal case reported in 1987 3 SCC 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held apart from calling names from the Employment Exchange, wide publicity ought to be issued through paper publication and affixture in notice board in prominent places so that all eligible candidates would get an opportunity to participate in the selection process. Selection is not only on employment exchange seniority basis, but it should also merit basis also. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014
8. Therefore, this Court directs the first respondent to follow the recruitment process as per rules and regulations. Also directs the first respondent to give wide publicity by issuing paper publication, affix in notice board, apart from calling for names from the employment exchange as stated supra.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
03.01.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No trp 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014 To
1.The Commissioner, Virudhunagar Municipality, Virudhunagar.
2.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Virudhunagar.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD).No.10447 of 2014 S. SRIMATHY, J., trp W.P(MD).No. 10447 of 2014 and MP(MD).No.1 of 2014 WMP(MD).Nos. 17040 and 17041 of 2018 03.01.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis