Madras High Court
S.Ganesan vs The Secretary on 18 July, 2022
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
W.P.No.11688 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.07.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.11688 of 2011
and M.P.No.2 of 2011
S.Ganesan ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Deputy Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Commissioner of Transport,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
4.The Deputy Transport Commissioner,
Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner,
Erode – 11. ...Respondents
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11688 of 2011
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records relating to the order issued by the second respondent in MEMO
No.7372/APD-E1/RID2/2010 dated 25.01.2011, and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Vehicle Inspector, Grade-II on the basis of the
educational, experience qualification possessed by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanan
For Respondents – 1 & 2 : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
For Respondents – 3 & 4 : Mr.G.Nanmaran
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The relief sought by the petitioner in this writ petition is to call for the records in pursuant to the order dated 25.01.2011, issued by the second respondent in MEMO No.7372/APD-E1/RID2/2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Vehicle Inspector, Grade-II on the basis of the educational, experience qualification possessed by the petitioner. 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011
2. The case of the petitioner is that he has completed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the K.S.Rangasamy Institute of Technology, Tiruchengode in the year 1988, after completing his engineering Diploma, he joined Sri Balaji Auto works, a Government major approved automobile workshop, as a mechanic on 04.06.1993, on full time basis. He worked there till 30.12.1994. During his employment at the aforesaid workshop, he had repaired both petrol and diesel engines and have experience in repairing vehicles fitted with both petrol and diesel engines viz L.M.V, H.P.M.V, and H.G.V., and also having a valid driving licence to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle. Thereafter, he had also worked as a driver with Sri.N.K.Samy Roadways, Tiruchengode driving heavy transport vehicles from 02.01.1995 to 29.09.1995. He also completed B.E.Degree in Mechanical Engineering in the year 1999, conducted by the Madras University. The first respondent issued a notification dated 24.02.2009, in Advt. No.187 calling for application for direct recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II. Pursuant to the notification in Advt.No.187 dated 24.02.2009, he had applied for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II and after 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 scrutinizing his application called him for a written test to be held on 24.05.2009, the first respondent published the short listed candidates for interview on 17.09.2010, and his name was not found in the list. The second respondent vide his Memo No.7372/APD-E1/RID2/2010 dated 25.01.2011, informed him that his application was rejected subsequently as decided by the Committee as he did not possess the workshop experience as prescribed in para 4(B)(iii) and explanation under para 4(B) of the Commission's notification dated 28.02.2009. Aggrieved by the above Memo issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is fully eligible and being considered for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II. The proforma sent by the Regional Transport Officer, Erode, after verifying his experience certificate shows that the workshop is approved, he had worked as a mechanic both on diesel and petrol engines in L.M.V., H.P.M.V. and H.G.V from 04.06.1993 to 30.12.1994, and records have been produced to show the genuineness of 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 his experience certificate in spite of the proforma having been sent by the Regional Transport Authority to the effect that the petitioner was possessing necessary workshop experience, and the second respondent without assigning any reason has rejected his application. The communication regarding the rejection of his application was known to the petitioner after he sought for information under the Right to Information Act. The workshop in which the petitioner was working as a mechanic in Sri Balaji Auto works, Erode and the same is recognized and approved by the Government for carrying out the repairs to the Government vehicles. The order of recognition was issued by the Director of the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Chennai on 31.03.1993, and subsequently on 20.06.1994. The Regional Transport Officer, Erode has verified his experience certificate and submitted that the petitioner's employment certificate is genuine and the petitioner had worked on both diesel and petrol engines in L.M.V., H.P.M.V. and H.G.V. The second respondent did not give reasons as to how the workshop experience possessed by the petitioner does not conform to the experience prescribed in the notification. The respondents ought to have considered that the workshop where the petitioner has worked was approved 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department and he had worked for more than 18 months.
4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the first respondent / Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the claims of the candidates in regard to the practical experience were referred to the Transport Commissioner, Chennai-5 to verify the genuineness and the validity of the experience certificate produced by the candidates. The petitioner had enclosed along with the application, experience certificate obtained from Sri Balaji Auto Works, Erode in which he gained workshop experience for the period from 04.06.1993 to 30.12.1994. His experience certificate was also referred to the Transport Commissioner for verification of the genuineness of the workshop experience possessed by him. The Transport Commissioner had sent the report, which states as follows:
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 “Mechanic for the period from 04.06.1993 to 30.12.1994. Approved by MVMD with copy enclosed.
Major and Minor repairs for LMV, HGV and HPV.
Repairs attended for both petrol and diesel in LMV, HGV and HPMV. Driving practice not allowed. Not genuine (Attendance register / Attendance rolls, Pay register and other records are verified with enclosed)”. The above report of the third respondent / Transport Commissioner was placed before the Scrutiny Committee and the Committee scrutinized the report of the Transport Commissioner and decided that “Genuineness could not be verified and not approved”. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was rejected subsequently for the reason that he did not possess the workshop experience as prescribed in para 4 (B) (iii) and explanation under para 4 (B) of the Commission's Notification dated 28.02.2009. He further submitted that subsequently many recruitments have taken place in the last ten years and this recruitment is pertaining to the year 2011, and one post is kept vacant in view of the order passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2011 dated 08.09.2011.
7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011
6. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the third respondent / The Commissioner of Transport.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the first respondent / Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has invited applications for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – II on 24.02.2009, vide Notification / Advertisement No.187 and the petitioner's Registration is No.00102015 and T.No.002487. The above selection process was fully vest with the first and second respondents and the third and fourth respondents have no role in this process. The qualification for the Post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – II was already mentioned in clause 4(B) of the Tamil Nadu Service Commission Notification dated 24.02.2009. At the request of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission the workshop experience of the candidate was verified with the concerned workshop by the Regional Transport Officer, Erode and the same was sent to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for further course of action. The selection of suitable 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 candidates for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – II under the Tamil Nadu Transport Sub-ordinate Service Rules vest with the first and second respondents. After getting the selection list from the first respondent, the appointment order will be issued by the third respondent to the selected candidates as per rules and the third and fourth respondents have no role in the above process of selection and the third respondent will not be in a position to give any relief sought by the petitioner. Moreover, the Regional Transport Officer, Erode has verified the workshop experience certificate and had sent a detailed report of the proforma to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed in the written test itself and he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – II.
8. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
9. In this case, the petitioner has worked in Sri Balaji Auto works a Government major approved automobile workshop, as a mechanic and the 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 recognition approval was given by the Director of Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Chennai on 31.03.1993, and subsequently on 20.06.1994, the petitioner also possessed one year workshop experience and six months driving experience. The stand taken by the first respondent is that applications of all the candidates were subjected to thorough scrutiny in terms of educational qualification, practical experience possessed by the candidates. The candidates claim in regard to the practical experience were referred to the Transport Commissioner, Chennai – 5 / third respondent to verify the genuineness and the validity of the experience certificate produced by the candidates. The experience certificate produced by the petitioner was also referred to the Transport Commissioner for genuineness and the Transport Commissioner has sent a report in which it is stated that the attendance register / attendance rolls, pay register and other records are not genuine and driving practice was not allowed. The above report was placed before the committee and the Committee scrutinized the report of the Transport Commissioner and decided that “Genuineness could not be verified and not approved”. This stand taken by the Committee is not 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 acceptable because it is the duty of the committee to verify the genuineness, since the genuineness could not be verified by the Committee they cannot in simpliciter say “not approved”. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was rejected for the reason that he did not possess the workshop experience. The order of recognition was issued to Sri Balaji Auto works for the period from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1994, vide proceedings in RC.No.B4/44210/92 dated 31.03.1993, and for the period from 20.06.1994 to 31.03.1995, and the petitioner has worked during the period from 04.06.1993 to 30.12.1994, for which period the recognition and approval was granted by the Director of the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Chennai. It is the duty cast upon the scrutiny Committee to verify the documents submitted by the candidates. Since, the same could not be verified by them and they cannot say his report is not approved.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent submitted that the above selection process for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – II fully vest with the first and second respondents and the third and fourth respondents have no role in this process and the qualification for the 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – II is already mentioned in clause 4(B) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Notification dated 24.02.2009. The third respondent also further submitted that the petitioner has failed in the written test itself and he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade – II. But nowhere in the counter affidavit filed by the first and second respondents, it is mentioned that the candidates have failed in the written examination conducted by them. The rejection of the petitioner's application is based on the following three grounds:
(i) The attendance register / attendance rolls, pay register and other records submitted by the petitioner is not genuine as per the report of the Transport Commissioner.
(ii) The petitioner has failed in the written examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
(iii) Driving practice not allowed where the petitioner was working as a mechanic for the period from 04.06.1993 to 30.12.1994.
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011
11. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have rightly rejected the application of the writ petitioner on the aforesaid grounds.
12. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.07.2022 cda Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.11688 of 2011 J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
cda To
1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Deputy Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Commissioner of Transport, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
4.The Deputy Transport Commissioner, Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Erode – 11.
W.P.No.11688 of 2011
18.07.2022 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis