Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Sudhakar S vs Ut Of Puducherry on 28 January, 2026
1 OA/310/00526/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00526/2025
Dated this the 28th day of January, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA MEMBER(A)
1. Sudhakar S
S/oSugumar R
20, Kennedy Street,
Kamaraj Nagar, Gorimedu,
Puducherry.
2. Prakash M
S/o Muthukrishnan,
No.57, Mariamman Koil Street,
Irulansanthai, Kuruvinatham Post,
Bahour, Puducherry.
3. Subramani R
S/o Rajendiran S
No.13, 5th Main Road,
Bharathi Dasan Nagar,
Mudaliarpet, Puducherry.
4. Angel Jaseyjesitha
D/o David Alexsander A,
No.22, Kasthuribai Gandhi Street,
Nethaji Nagar 1, Uppalam,
Puducherry.
5. Ramkumari K
D/o Kuppan,
No.48, Puthupet,
Korkadu, Puducherry.
2 OA/310/00526/2025
6. Selvakumari K
D/o Kuppn,
No.48, Puthupet,
Korkadu, Puducherry . .. Applicants
By Advocate M/s. T. Sai Krishnan & R. Saravanan
Vs.
l. Union of India
rep by its Chief Secretary,
Government of Puducherry
Puducherry.
2. The Under Secretary (Survey),
Directorate of Survey and Land Records,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
3. Secretary to Government (Agri.) - cum -
Controller of Examination,
Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing),
Puducherry.
4.The Director of Survey,
Department of Revenue and
Disaster Management,
Directorate of Survey and Land Records,
Puducherry.
5. Sankar Devi. C,
No.12A, Pathukannu Main Road,
Kodappakkam,
Puducherry.
6. Udayakumar N,
No .5, M.A Koil Street,
Chinna Arachikuppam,
Bahour Commune,
Puducherry.
3 OA/310/00526/2025
7. Saravanan R,
No.17, 1st Cross Street,
Kurinji Nagar Extension,
Lawspet, Puducherry.
8. Premkumar S,
No.5, MGR Nagar Extn South,
Moolakulam, Puducherry.
9. Rajaram M,
No.3, East Street,
Amman Nagar,
Katterikuppam, Puducherry.
10. Rajesh R,
No.35, Selliamman Nagar,
Periyakalapet,
Puducherry.
I l. Anandhi S,
No. 54, North Street,
Edaiyarpalayam, Puducherry.
12. Arun D,
No.16, Second Cross,
Ajees Nagar, Reddiyarpalayam,
Puducherry.
13. Sham Febiyan S,
No.5, Second Cross,
Goubert Nagar, Puducherry.
14. Manikandan M,
No.18, KC Nagar,
Nellithope, Puducherry.
15. Sathish R,
No.23, Third Cross, Vanavil Nagar,
Kurumbagaram Main Road,
Nedugadu, Karaikal,
Puducherry. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa for R.1 to 4
4 OA/310/00526/2025
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Aggrieved by the rejection of their request for cancellation of the selection and appointment of respondents 5 to 15 to the post of Draughtsman, the applicants have filed the OA for quashing of the said selection and appointment and for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to redo the selection and to appoint them upon being successful in the selection and award cost and pass such further or other orders and thus render justice.
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants are as follows:
The applicants are natives of Puducherry and they possesses National Trade Certificate issued by the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades in the trade of Draughtsman (Civil) at ITI. They also possesses experience in Auto CAD (Civil). The 2nd respondent had issued a Recruitment Notification, dated 12.12.2022 by which applications were called for direct recruitment to fill up 12 Nos. of vacancies in the post of Draughtsman by way of Written Competitive Examination. Otut of the said 12 posts, 6 meant for Unreserved category and 2 under MBC category, 2 under SC category, 1 post under OBC category and I post under EWS category. The applicants were issued with hall ticket to 5 OA/310/00526/2025 participate in the Common Written examination held on 03.12.2023.
Based on the marks obtained in the competitive examination, a provisional select list was published by the respondents on 06.12.2023, wherein, the name of the applicants herein do not find place. However, upon perusal of the impugned provisional select list, the applicants were put to understand that the names of the candidates, who did not even possess requisite qualifications as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and the Notification, were declared as provisionally selected candidates. As per the Recruitment Rules, the candidates who possess National Council for Training in Vocational Trades in the trade of Draughtsman (Civil) at ITI with experience in AutoCAD (Civil) alone eligible for the post. It is the case of the applicants that candidates who did not possess the requisite qualifications were declared as provisionally selected by the Notification, dated 06.12.2023. Pursuant to the same, the 4th respondent vide notification dated 14.02.2024 had appointed the respondents 5 to 15. While so, the applicants had approached the respondents' seeking details of the qualification possessed by the respondents 5 to 15 by way of RTI and upon securing details of the qualification possessed by the respondents, the applicants filed OA No.1445/2024 before this Tribunal which by an order, dated 07.10.2024 granted liberty to the applicants to submit a comprehensive representation to the respondents and a further 6 OA/310/00526/2025 direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking orders on the representations filed by the applicants. Pursuant to the order, the applicants submitted a detailed representation, dated 28.11.2024 and the 4th respondent passed the impugned order, dated 05.03.2025 whereby admitting the fact that the respondents 5 to 15 do not possess requisite essential qualification as required in the Recruitment Rules, however refused to cancel their appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants filed the present OA challenging the selection and appointment of the respondents 5 to 15.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the respondents have failed to scrutinize and filter out candidates who did not possess the requisite qualifications. Instead, they permitted all applicants for the post of Draughtsman, irrespective of eligibility, to participate in the common written examination. Pursuant to the Notification, dated 06.12.2023, the provisional select list was prepared solely on the basis of marks obtained, and candidates who did not possess the mandatory qualifications prescribed for the post of Draughtsman were erroneously declared as provisionally selected. Consequently, the impugned selection and appointments are liable to be set aside.
7 OA/310/00526/2025
4. He further submitted that the qualifications prescribed for a post are intended to ensure suitability for the functions attached to that post. When such qualifications are clearly defined, candidates possessing higher qualifications or those lacking the prescribed qualifications under the Recruitment Rules cannot be accommodated, as doing so would amount to a clear violation of the rules. He contended that none of the selected candidates, namely the private respondents 5 to 15, possess the requisite educational qualifications as mandated under the Recruitment Rules, and yet they were erroneously declared as selected by respondents 1 to 4.
5. He also pointed out that, as per the Recruitment Notification and Rules, the essential qualification for the post is a National Council for Training in Vocational Trades (NCTVT) certificate in the trade of Draughtsman (Civil) from an ITI, along with experience in Auto CAD (Civil). However, respondents 5 to 15 do not possess the requisite qualification in the 'Civil' discipline. He also drew attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 6962 of 2023, dated 01.06.2023, which squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he prayed that the reliefs sought in the present Original Application be granted.
8 OA/310/00526/2025
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Govt of Puducherry vehemently opposed the submissions of the applicants based on the reply statement filed by the respondents 1 to 4. He submitted that the 4 th respondent has invited application from eligible Indian citizen who are natives /residents of Puducherry for filling the post 12 vacancies in the post of Draughtsman and 27 vacancies for the post of Field Surveyor. He further submitted that a common written competitive examination has been held on 03.12.2023 and 630 candidates have appeared for the common written examination. The DP& AR (Exam Cell) published the result for the post of Draughtsman and Field Surveyor separately based on the marks obtained in the common written examination.
7. He further submitted that the following 11 candidates who are the private respondents 5 to 15 in the present OA were placed in the provisional select for the post of Draughtsman for certificate verification on 11.01.2024 (R-5).
Sl. Roll No. Name of the Candidate Marks
No. (Private Respondents in OA) Obtained
UNRESERVED (UR)
1 11010 Sankar Devi C (MBC) 57.15
2 10792 Udayakumar N (MBC) 51.50
3 11278 Saravanan R (MBC) 47.75
4 10163 Premkumar S (OBC) 45.25
9 OA/310/00526/2025
5 10349 Rajaram M (OBC) 44.00
6 10352 Rajesh R (MBC) 43.00
MOST BACKWARD (MBC)
1 10663 Anandhi S 45.00
2 10439 Arun D 40.25
OTHER BACKWARD (OBC)
1 10367 Sham Febiyan S J 40.50
SCHEDULED CASTES (SC)
1 10679 Manikandan M 29.75
2 10745 Sathish R 27.25
8. According to the learned Govt Pleader, all the aforesaid candidates who appeared for certificate verification were duly scrutinized by the Certificate Verification Committee. Upon verification, it was found that all 11 provisionally selected candidates possessed the requisite qualifications, of whom four candidates hold a Diploma in Civil Engineering along with an additional qualification of a Degree in Civil Engineering, while the remaining seven candidates possess a Degree in Civil Engineering. Accordingly, with the approval of the Departmental Recruitment Committee, offers of appointment were issued to the said candidates.
9. He further submitted that the selection process, conducted through a competitive examination, was carried out in a fair and transparent manner strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the 10 OA/310/00526/2025 recruitment notification issued for the post of Draughtsman. There was no deviation or violation of the prescribed rules at any stage of the recruitment process. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the OA.
10. We have heard learned counsel on either side,, perused the pleadings and the available materials placed on record.
11. It is seen that as per the Notification, dated 12.12.2022 for thepost of Draughtsman, the minimum qualifying marks to be secured (out of 100 marks) by the candidates belonging to various category is as follows:
Unreserved Category (UR) 30%
MBC/OBC/EWS 25%
SC/ESM 20%
12. It is also seen from the records that as per the common competitive written examination held on 03.12.2023, the details of marks secured by the applicants are as follows:
Sl Roll No Name of the D.O.B Category Marks
No. Applicants Secured
1 10356 Sudhakar S 07.07.1990 OBC 30.25
2 11224 Prakash M 15.11.1990 SC 16.75
3 11155 Subramani R 06.05.1988 MBC 18.00
4 10600 Angel Jasey 30.08.1988 OBC-Migrant 15.25
Jesitha D
11 OA/310/00526/2025
5 10434 Ramkumari K 20.12.1986 SC 8.75
6 11018 Selvakumari K 15.09.1989 SC 11.25
13. From the tabulation set out above and in terms of the Recruitment Notification, the crucial date for determining the age eligibility of candidates is 13.01.2023. As per the Notification, candidates should not have exceeded the age of 32 years as on the said date in order to be considered under the Unreserved category. In the present case, it is evident that all the applicants had crossed the age limit of 32 years as on 13.01.2023. Consequently, they could not be considered under the Unreserved category and were required to be considered, if at all eligible, only under their respective reserved categories.
14. Upon a detailed scrutiny of the records, it is further evident that none of the applicants, except the first applicant namely Sudhakar S., had secured the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for selection. Even assuming, without admitting, that the first applicant had secured the minimum qualifying marks, the same would still be insufficient for his consideration under the OBC category, as the last selected candidate under the OBC category had secured 40.50 marks, which is higher than the marks obtained by the first applicant. In view of the above facts, since the applicants failed to secure the requisite marks necessary for consideration 12 OA/310/00526/2025 to the post of Draughtsman under the applicable categories, their candidature was rightly and lawfully rejected by respondents 1 to 4.
15. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is evident that the applicants were neither eligible with respect to the prescribed age criteria for consideration under the Unreserved category nor did they secure the requisite qualifying marks under their respective categories as mandated by the Recruitment Rules and notification. The respondents have strictly adhered to the prescribed eligibility conditions and selection criteria, and the rejection of the applicants' candidature was based on objective assessment and due scrutiny of records. Accordingly, the action of respondents 1 to 4 in rejecting the candidature of the applicants is just, lawful, and does not warrant any interference.
16. In the result, the OA lacks merits and it is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
28 .01.2026
mas
MA Digitally signed
by M A SUNDAR
SUNDAR Date: 2026.02.12
14:28:34 +05'30'