Madras High Court
C.A.Munusamy vs The Superintending Engineer ... on 15 February, 2021
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
W.P. No. 18326 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
W.P. No. 18326 of 2011
C.A.Munusamy ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Superintending Engineer (Highways),
Construction and Maintenance,
Chennai Circle,
Chennai - 600005.
2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways),
Construction and Maintenance,
Vellore - 9. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second
respondent herein to appoint the petitioner for the post of Road Inspector
Grade II, in Vellore District in any one of the existing vacancies under the
second respondent herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Purushothaman.
For Respondents : Mr.K.Magesh, Special
Government Pleader.
1/10
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No. 18326 of 2011
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent herein to appoint the petitioner for the post of Road Inspector Grade II, in Vellore District in any one of the existing vacancies under the second respondent herein.
2. The petitioner after having qualified with I.T.I Certificate and one year apprenticeship in the office of Divisional Engineer during the year 1984-1985, worked as NMR Technical Assistant for one year in Town Panchayat Office at Vellore District and also National Highways Section Office, Tiruvannamalai and Gudiyatham.
3. He had also completed Diploma Course in Civil Engineering in the year 1995. Thereafter, he appeared privately in +2 examinations and subsequently through correspondence course got completed M.A.(Economics) in the year 1996.
4. With these qualifications, the petitioner had already been 2/10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 18326 of 2011 working as NMR Technical Assistant in Vandavasi Municipality and have been paid a daily wages of Rs.240/-.
5. Since he had enrolled in the District Employment Office, Vellore in the year 1983 and the same has been periodically renewed by him till 2011, on 14.02.2011, the petitioner had received call letter from the respondent Department for an interview and certificate verification to be conducted on 23.02.2011 in connection with the temporary appointment for the post of Road Inspector Grade II under the respondent Highways Department, Vellore.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the interview along with the other candidates on 23.02.2011 and he claimed that, he performed well in the certificate verification and interview. Despite the same, though he is very senior comparing with others in the seniority maintained in the Employment Exchange, he was not selected and there was no intimation given by the respondents to the petitioner, as to whether he was selected or not. Only at this juncture, the present Writ Petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.
3/10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 18326 of 2011
7. Heard Mr.G.Purushothaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, despite his higher qualification and his performance during the interview session, which is nothing but certificate verification, where the certificates have been verified, he was not selected and given appointment and according to the petitioner, when he subsequently requested the reasons, it was informed that only 24 candidates were selected and appointed, whereas the petitioner was not selected. He would further submit that, comparing with the qualification of the petitioner, some of the candidates, who are juniors to the petitioner, were selected and therefore, non-selection, in respect of the petitioner candidature is bad in law. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Road Inspector Grade II.
8. Heard, Mr.K.Magesh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. By relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, he would submit that, no doubt, in order to fill up the post of Road Inspector Grade II, where the vacancies was approximately around 30, a list of 112 4/10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 18326 of 2011 candidates were sponsored by the concerned District Employment Exchange, Vellore, by communication dated 11.02.2011 and based on which, call letter was issued by the respondents department to those candidates, for attending the interview, to be conducted on 23.02.2011. Out of 112 candidates, only 92 candidates attended the interview, pursuant to the call letter issued in this regard, where the interview Board after having conducted the interview, selected 24 candidates and the selection list was made only in respect of the 24 candidates. Therefore, the remaining candidates out of 92 were not selected and the petitioner is one among them who was not selected during the interview and not otherwise as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that, the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is untenable and is liable to be rejected.
9. I have considered the said submissions made by both parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
10. Though it was claimed by the petitioner that, what was the 5/10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 18326 of 2011 interview conducted on 23.02.2011, pursuant to the call letter was only the certificate verification session, where the certificates displaying the qualifications and experience of the candidates alone were verified, the stand of the respondents is that, it was not a mere certificate verification session, but it was an interview and this has been specifically stated in the call letter.
11. In this context, the call letter issued by the second respondent to the petitioner has been produced by the petitioner in the typedset of papers, which reads thus:
"jh';fs; ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; eilbgWk; neu;Kf nju;t[f;F fPH;Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s mry; rhd;WfSld; kw;Wk;
,t;tiHg;g[ fojj;Jld; M$uhFk;go nfl;Lf;
bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/
1) fy;tpr; rhd;W
2) $hjpr; rhd;W
3) ,Ug;gplr;; rhd;W
4) ntiy tha;g;g[ mYtyf gjpt[ ml;il
5) gh!; nghu;l; mst[ g[ifg;glk;?2 6/10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 18326 of 2011
6) FLk;g ml;il neu;Kfj; nju;t[ eilbgWk; ehs; neuk;
,lk;
nfhl;lg; bghwpahsu;. 23/02/2011 kjpak; 2/00
beL";rhiy fl;Lkhdk; (k) kzp
guhkupg;g[ myF. khtl;l
Ml;;rpau; mYtyfk;. *gp*
gpshf;. 2k; jsk;.
rj;Jtr;rhup. ntY}u;?9
,e;j neu;Kf nju;t[f;F gazg;go VJk; tH';fg;gl khl;lhJ vd bjuptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ Xk;-?tP/R/j';fntY.
nfhl;lg; bghwpahsu; (be)(f)(k)(g) ntY}u;?9."
12. On reading of the aforesaid call letter, it has become clear that, it is not a mere certificate verification session but it is an interview, for which, the interview Board consisting of the following persons were constituted:
7/10
http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 18326 of 2011 1 Thiru.V.S.Thangavelu, B.E., Divisional Engineer (H) C&M, Vellore 2 Thiru.G.Velu, B.E., Divisional Engineer (H) C&M, Vaniyambadi Thiru.S.S.Saravanan, M.E., Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) C&M, 3 Vellore Thiru.K.S.Rajkumar, B.E., Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) C&M, 4 Arcot Thiru.P.Nagaraju, B.E., Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) C&M, 5 Vaniyambadi "The interview was conducted with due care taking into account of the qualification, Age, Eligibility, Experience and merit. Taking into all the aspects marks were awarded to candidates on the observation made by the officers who have interviewed the candidates. Then the list of candidates selection were arranged according to the communal rotations (Roaster)."
13. The said Interview Board before whom, all the 92 candidates appeared, have selected 24 candidates, based on the qualification, age, eligibility, experience and marks. Since the criteria of the interview marks should have been evaluated based on the marks that was found or evaluated by the interview Board and in this context, it cannot be concluded that, it is only a certificate verification session based on the 8/10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 18326 of 2011 employment seniority and based on the minimum qualification required for consideration of the appointment to the said post, the selection could be made.
14. Such kind of impression the petitioner is trying to bring before this Court cannot be accepted as it was an interview, where the petitioner and others attended. Though 92 candidates attended the interview, only 24 of them were selected and the remaining candidates were rejected including the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance to espouse before this Court in this Writ Petition to consider his candidature.
15. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that, the relief sought for in this Writ Petition cannot be given and accordingly, the Writ Petition fails, hence it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
15.02.2021 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No 9/10 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 18326 of 2011 vji R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
vji To
1.The Superintending Engineer (Highways), Construction and Maintenance, Chennai Circle, Chennai - 600005.
2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways), Construction and Maintenance, Vellore - 9.
W.P. No. 18326 of 2011
15.02.2021 10/10 http://www.judis.nic.in