Madras High Court
S.Santhosh Kumar … vs The Director on 16 August, 2022
Author: P.D. Audikesavalu
Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu
W.P. No. 9913 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 9913 of 2016
and
W.M.P. Nos. 8894 to 8896 of 2016
S.Santhosh Kumar … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Director,
Sericulture Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director,
Sericulture Department,
Foulke's Compond,
Annaimadu,
Salem.
3. Babu Rao
4. K.Vignesh
5. M.Selvakumar ...
Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the Second Respondent herein in and quash the select list published
by the Second Respondent herein on the official website dated 02.03.2016 so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
W.P. No. 9913 of 2016
far as the selection of the three private Third to Fifth Respondents and
consequently direct the Respondents to select and appoint the Petitioner to the
post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture in the Backward Class category pursuant
to the notification No. 1 to 2016 dated 13.01.2016.
For Petitioner : Ms. Dakshayani Reddy
for M/s. Mukund R.Pandian
For Respondents : Mr. P.Balathandayutham
Special Government Pleader (for R1 & R2)
Not ready in Notice (for R3 to R5)
ORDER
Heard Ms. Dakshayani Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.Balathandayutham, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First and Second Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the selection of the Third to Fifth Respondents in the recruitment to the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture pursuant to Notification No. 1 of 2016 dated 13.01.2016 made by the First Respondent by contending that he has secured higher marks than them but had not been appointed to that post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5 W.P. No. 9913 of 2016
3. In the Reply Affidavit dated 29.04.2016 filed by the Second Respondent, it has been stated that the Petitioner, who had secured 116.50 mark as against the cut-off mark of 125.75 for Backward Class (General) non-priority category to which he belongs, could not be selected. It is further explained that though the Third to Fifth Respondents belong to Backward Class (General) and had secured lesser marks than the Petitioner, they were selected as they come under priority category for which the particulars have been shown below:-
SI. Roll Name of the Community Marks Priority factor No. No. candidate obtained
1. 1604 Babu Rao BC 95.75 Inter-caste Marriage & General Priority
2. 2755 K.Vignesh BC 98.25 Ex-servicemen & studied in Tamil Medium
3. 1892 M.Selvakumar BC 101.75 Ex-servicemen & studied in Tamil Medium In such circumstances, it is not possible to countenance the claim made by the Petitioner in this case.
In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
16.08.2022 gd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5 W.P. No. 9913 of 2016 Index: Yes/No Note: Issue order copy by 30.08.2022. To
1. The Director, Sericulture Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director, Sericulture Department, Foulke's Compond, Annaimadu, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5 W.P. No. 9913 of 2016 P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
gd W.P. No. 9913 of 2016 16.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/5