Madras High Court
K.Vasudevan vs The Director Of School Education on 22 September, 2022
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.15978 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.15978 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.17277 of 2017
K.Vasudevan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of School Education,
Department of Public Instruction
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
2. The Chief Educational Officer,
Department of School Education,
Nagapattinam Tauk & District.
3. The Assistant Director,
The District Employment Office,
Nagapattinam. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents, particularly the first
and second respondents to select the petitioner as a Lab.Assistant under the
backward class community of Gavara and also as a disabled ex-serviceman's
dependant in the selection process on the basis of the petitioner
representations dated 12.05.2017 and 03.06.2017.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15978 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ of mandamus has been instituted to select the petitioner as a Lab.Assistant under the backward class community of Gavara and also as a disabled Ex-serviceman's dependant in the selection process on the basis of the petitioner's representations dated 12.05.2017 and 03.06.2017.
2. Mere submission of representations would not confer any right to secure public employment. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate, thus, the persons aspiring to secure public employment has to participate in the open competitive process and mere submission of representations to provide an appointment based on the ground that the petitioner is the dependant of the Ex-servicemen is untenable.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that there is no quota allotted for the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15978 of 2017 dependants of the Ex-servicemen. However, the Government issued order in G.O.(Ms).No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel – P) Department dated 28.12.1976, providing eligibility only to the disabled Ex- servicemen and not to the dependant of the Ex-servicemen. Therefore, whenever a notification is issued, reserving quota for Disabled Ex- Servicemen or for the members of their family, then alone the petitioner would be eligible to avail the quota but not otherwise.
4. In this regard, Paragraph 6 of the Counter filed by the Chief Educational Officer, Nagapattinam reads as under:
“6. Regarding the averments in para 4 of the affidavit of the petitioner, it is submitted that the date of birth/Educational qualification of the petitioner and his community are not disputed. But the petitioner did not belong to Disabled/Ex-servicemen as alleged by the petitioner. It is submitted that definition for disability is described as follows in G.O.(Ms).No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.12.1976.
“Group I. Disabled Ex Servicemen.
(Disabled Ex.Servicemen mean Ex.Servicemen, who while serving in the Armed force of the Union were disabled in operation against enemy or in disturbed area” Upto two members of the family (Widows/Sons/daughters/next of kin) of the enrolled 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15978 of 2017 personnel of the Armed Forces who were killed or disabled in action and are totally unfit for re-employment leaving their families in indigent circumstances and upto two members of the family (Widows/Sons/daughters/next of kin) of Border Security Force Personnel killed in action”. It is submitted that the petitioner is not coming under the above definition. Hence the contention of the petitioner has no merit.”
5. Thus, only in the event of issuing recruitment notification allotting quota for a particular category, the petitioner has to submit his application to participate in the process of selection. Mere representation would not confer any right to seek a direction by filing a writ petition. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the process of selection, if any notified under the reserved category or under any other category for which the petitioner is eligible in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.
6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.09.2022 Index : Yes rgm/sha 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15978 of 2017 To
1. The Director of School Education, Department of Public Instruction, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Department of School Education, Nagapattinam Tauk & District.
3. The Assistant Director, The District Employment Office, Nagapattinam.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15978 of 2017 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
rgm/sha W.P.No.15978 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.17277 of 2017 22.09.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis