Madras High Court
K.Veeramuthu vs The Managing Director on 20 February, 2025
WP.Nos.22389 & 25694 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.P Nos.22389 & 25694 of 2018
and
WMP.Nos.29882, 29887, 29884, 26235& 26236 of 2018
1 K.Veeramuthu
S/o.kandan Arunthathiyar Street
Chinnammanaickenpalayam And Post
Velur Via Vazhapadi Taluk
Salem District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Managing Director,
State Industries Promotion Corporation Of
Tamil Nadu Ltd (sipcot)
No.19A Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
2 The General Manager,
State Industries Promotion Corporation Of
Tamil Nadu Ltd (sipcot)
No.19A Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents
Prayer in WP.No.22389/2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus To call for the
records relating to the impugned communication issued by the 1st respondent in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.22389 & 25694 of 2018
No.Nil dated 12.6.2018 and to quash the same and consequently directing the
respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the Post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) based on the merit in the selection conducted in pursuant to the
Notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.11.2014 based on merit in the
selection under Scheduled Caste Arunthathiyar Category with all consequential
and other attendant benefits.
Prayer in WP.No.25694/2018: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus To call for the
records relating to the impugned Notification issued by the 1st Respondent in
Notification No.01/2018 dated 20.08.2018 and to quash the same in so far as
concerned and consequently directing the Respondents to select and appoint the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer(Civil)based on the merit in the
selection conducted in pursuant to the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent
dated 10.11.2014 based on merit in the selection under scheduled caste
Arunthathiyar category with all consequential and other attendant benefits.
In Both WPs.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan.
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Revathi
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner, in both writ petitions, has filed these petitions seeking to call for the records related to the impugned notification issued by the 1st respondent in Notification No. 01/2018 dated 20.08.2018, as well as the records 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.22389 & 25694 of 2018 related to the impugned communication issued by the 1st respondent in No. Nil dated 12.06.2018. The petitioner further seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to select and appoint them to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) based on merit in the selection process conducted pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent on 10.11.2014, under the Scheduled Caste Arunthathiyar category.
2.Heard Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.R.Revathi, learned counsel for respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3.The petitioner was sponsored through the Employment Exchange to the post of Assistant Engineer in response to the notification issued by the 1st respondent SIPCOT. The contention of the petitioner is that he got a call letter to attend the interview and he also participated in the interview. Thereafter the selection was cancelled due to administrative reasons.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after having completed the selection process it is unfair on the part of the respondents to cancel the recruitment itself. According to the petitioner the petitioner got selected but without issuing the appointment letter, the respondents have 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.22389 & 25694 of 2018 cancelled the selection process itself.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondents are compelled to cancel the selection in view of the poor performance of the applicants who appeared for the written examination. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has obtained only 10 marks in the written examination out of 100 marks. As the general performance of the candidate is low, the petitioner could find himself short-listed in the interview. But the 1st respondent thought it fit to cancel the very selection process and issued a fresh notification; the petitioner cannot compel the respondent to complete the selection even when it is not feasible for them.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the recruitment process is completed and the selection list is issued, no cancellation of the recruitment shall be done. But a reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 678. In the said judgment, it is held as under:
"14. It is evident from the above that while no candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.22389 & 25694 of 2018 examination or even found a place in the select list, yet the State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared at the end of the selection process. The validity of the State's decision not to make an appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond judicial review before a competent Writ court. If any such decision is indeed found to be arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in the matter. ...
...
17. It is trite that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness which is an anti thesis of the guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether or not the cancellation of the typing test was arbitrary is a question which the Court shall have to examine once a challenge is mounted to any such action, no matter the candidates do not have an indefeasible right to claim an appointment against the advertised posts. "
7. But in the case involved in the above citation, it seems that the selection process was stopped only after the selection list was released. In the instant case, selection list was not released. As the 1st respondent thought it fit to cancel the selection process by issuing a fresh selection notification. The selection list was stopped even before the selection list was prepared. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.Nos.22389 & 25694 of 2018 R.N.MANJULA, J.
jrs In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
20.02.2025 Index : Yes Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non- Speaking Neutral: Yes/No jrs To 1 The Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation Of Tamil Nadu Ltd (sipcot) No.19A Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2 The General Manager, State Industries Promotion Corporation Of Tamil Nadu Ltd (sipcot) No.19A Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-8.
W.P Nos.22389 & 25694 of 2018 and WMP.Nos.29882, 29887, 29884, 26235& 26236 of 2018 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis