Madras High Court
R.Parameswari vs The Director Of Town And Country ... on 13 February, 2014
Author: R. Sudhakar
Bench: R. Sudhakar
IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 13.2.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.23658 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 R.Parameswari. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director of Town and Country Planning, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.Tmt.E.Senthamilselvi, 3.Tmt.K.Kannagi. (WP as against R3 was dismissed vide order dated 25.2.2011) ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the first respondent relating to his order made in Na.Ka.No.20692/2006/K3 dated 15.10.2008 selecting and appointing the respondents 2 and 3 as Surveyor/Assistant Draughtsman and quash the said order in so far as it relates to the respondents 2 and 3 and consequently direct the first respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as Surveyor/Assistant Draughtsman and award costs. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ayyathurai For Respondents : Mr.V.Subbiah, Special Government Pleader for R1 No appearance for R2 R3 - dismissed ----- O R D E R
This writ petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the first respondent relating to his order made in Na.Ka.No.20692/2006/K3 dated 15.10.2008 selecting and appointing the respondents 2 and 3 as Surveyor/Assistant Draughtsman and quash the said order in so far as it relates to the respondents 2 and 3 and consequently direct the first respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as Surveyor/Assistant Draughtsman and award costs.
2. Heard Mr.S.Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.
3. The first respondent department called for interview to be held on 11.9.2008 for appointment to the post of Surveyor/Assistant Draughtsman. More than 150 candidates were interviewed for selection of 50 candidates.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to backward community and the respondents 2 and 3 are belongs to her District (i.e.) Thanjavur. Petitioner has passed SSLC scoring 83% marks. Petitioner was granted 60 marks in the interview. Petitioner has to be accommodated in backward class category whereas the respondent department considered her as OC category candidate.
5. Based on the counter affidavit, Mr.Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the petitioner now pleads that the petitioner passed SSLC and joined ITI Draughtsman course and passed scoring 83%. She comes under the category of OC Non-priority-woman. She was awarded 60 marks in the interview. Hence, she was not selected. The second respondent comes under category of BC non-priority(women). She was awarded 65 marks. Hence, she was selected in the BC-Non-priority-women rotation and posted. The third respondent comes under the category of OC-Non-priority-women. She was awarded 67 marks. Hence, she was selected and posted. The appointment and selection process for the post of Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman was made only on merit basis. Due to low marks obtained in the viva voce, the petitioner was not considered for selection.
6. In para 5 of the counter, it is stated that the appointment for the post of Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman has been purely made on the basis of merits, skills and communal rotation and also marks obtained in SSLC, ITI, NA Training, Drawing Test, Oral Test.
7. It is not known whether the marks scored by the petitioner in SSLC, ITI, NA Training, Drawing Test, Oral Test has been considered. Further, Petitioner states that she belongs to backward community. It is not clear as to why she was considered as OC category candidate. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner pleads that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
8. Considering the rival claims the first respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment in any other suitable vacancy based on the marks obtained by the petitioner in SSLC, ITI, NA Training, Drawing Test, Oral Test as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is a vacancy for the relevant time.
9. This writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.2.2014
Index: No
Internet: Yes
ts
To
The Director of Town and Country Planning,
807, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
R. SUDHAKAR,J.,
ts
Order in
W.P.No.23658 of 2009
13.2.2014