Madras High Court
A. Mohammed Abdullah vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 26 November, 2018
Author: P.D. Audikesavalu
Bench: K.K. Sasidharan, P.D. Audikesavalu
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.A. (MD) No. 107 of 2018
and
C.M.P. (MD) No. 536 of 2018
A. Mohammed Abdullah ... Appellant/Petitioner
-vs-
1. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Chairman,
Having his office at Oomanthoorar
Industrial Estate, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
2. I. Nagoor Kani,
Register No. 00104130,
C/o The Secretary,
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
O/o. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai – 3.
3. S.K. Hameedha Banu,
Register No. 00105188,
C/o The Secretary,,
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
O/o. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai – 3. ... Respondents/Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set aside the
order dated 08.12.2017 made in W.P. (MD) No. 12260 of 2010 and allow the Writ
Petition.
For Appellant : Mr. Calvin Jones
for M/s. Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr. D. Sivaraman (for R1)
Mr. K.K. Senthil
Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.
(for for R2 & R3)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.) The Appellant who had applied for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II in the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Services pursuant to the notification dated 24.02.2009 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has challenged the list of candidates, who had been provisionally admitted to the oral test (interview) based on the results of the written examination conducted on 24.05.2009 and had sought for consequential direction to call him for oral test (interview).
2. The Respondent has filed a Counter Affidavit, in which after referring to the qualifications that should be possessed by the candidate, and has stated that after the written examination held on 24.05.2009, the application of all the candidates http://www.judis.nic.in 3 including that of the Appellant were subjected to thorough scrutiny in terms of educational qualification, practical experience, etc., possessed by the candidates. During that scrutiny, the experience certificate issued by Vincent Auto Garage, Trichy, in favour of the Appellant stating that he had gained workshop experience for the period from 02.08.1997 to 19.08.1999 was verified for its genuineness by the Transport Commissioner, who found that the attendance register, salary register and other relevant records of Vincent Auto Garage, Trichy, had not been produced and the said concern had been closed from 21.10.2000. When the aforesaid report of the Transport Commissioner was placed before the Committee constituted for that purpose to consider whether the Appellant possessed the requisite experience, it was decided that the workshop experience claimed by the Appellant could not be accepted as no records were available to substantiate the same and as such, the application of the Appellant was rejected on that ground in terms of para 4 (B) (iii) and Explanation under para 4 (B) of the notification dated 28.02.2009. It is further contended that the Respondent had reserved right to reject any candidature at any stage and in those circumstances, the Appellant was not called for oral test (interview) that was held on 07.10.2010 and 08.10.2010.
3. The Writ Court by order dated 08.12.2017 found that the rejection of the candidature of the Appellant was based on the report of the Committee and in the absence http://www.judis.nic.in of malafide motive in the decision of that Committee, the Court could not 4 interfere at that stage when almost 10 years had lapsed and as the selected candidates had not been impleaded.
4. The Appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal against the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2017 in W.P. (MD) No. 12260 of 2010. We have heard Mr. Calvin Jones for the Appellant and Mr. D. Sivaraman for the First Respondent and Mr. K.K. Senthil for the Second and Third Respondents and pursued the materials placed on record.
5. On a consideration of the rival submissions made, we are of the view that as rightly held by the Learned Judge in the Writ Court, in the absence of any malafides, the decision of the Committee in not accepting the workshop experience of the Appellant cannot be brought in challenge before this Court in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, which does not act as a Court of Appeal over the assessment made by the experts as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madan Lal -vs- State of Jammu and Kashmir [AIR 1995 SC 1088 :
1995 SCC (3) 486]. That apart, the Appellant on receipt of the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent stating the reasons for having rejected his application, had not produced any material to controvert the factual correctness of the decision of the expert Committee. Since we do not find any infirmity in the decision-making process of the First Respondent that the Appellant did not possess the requisite workshop experience, http://www.judis.nic.in we concur with the Writ Court declining to interfere with the impugned 5 non-selection of the Appellant. In the upshot, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
(K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.) (P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.)
26.11.2018
vjt
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Oomanthoorar Industrial Estate,
Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
K.K. SASIDHARAN, J.
and
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
vjt
W.A. (MD) No. 107 of 2018
26.11.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in