Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

T.Nandha Kumar vs The Commissioner on 24 August, 2017

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N.Sathish Kumar

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 24.08.2017  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR             

W.P(MD)No.8896 of 2009   
and 
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009  

T.Nandha Kumar                                                  ... Petitioner      
                                                Vs.

1.The Commissioner,  
   Employment & Training Commission,  
   Guindy, Chennai - 32.

2.The Director,
   Employment and Training,
   Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 

3.The District Employment Officer,
   Kanyakumari District,
   Nagercoil ? 629 001.         

4.The General Manager, 
   TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
   (Madurai Division III),
   Ranithottam, Nagercoil ? 629 001,
   Kanyakumari District.                                        ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his
proceedings vide Nee/Va.2/23804/09 dated 07.08.2009 and quash the same as   
illegal and consequently directing the third respondent to include the
petitioner's name in the seniority list for the post of Conductor in future
vacancy. 

!For Petitioner         : Mr.Dennis Joe

^For R-1 to R-3    : Mr.T.R.Janarthanam
                                             Additional Government Pleader
                For R-4            : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh       



:ORDER  

This writ petition has been filed to quash the first respondent's proceedings vide Nee/Va.2/23804/09 dated 07.08.2009 and include the petitioner's name in the seniority list for the post of Conductor in future vacancy.

2. The petitioner underwent conductor training in the year 1995 and registered his name in the District Employment Office, Villupuram on 02.08.1995. Thereafter, on 27.07.1998 his name was transferred from Villupuram Employment Office to Kanyakumari Employment Office. While forwarding the eligible candidates as per the seniority for the appointment of 214 Drivers and 227 Conductors (BC 17+51) as per the request of the fourth respondent, the third respondent has forwarded a list of 2693 candidates for the post of Drivers and 3311 candidates for the post of Conductors to the fourth respondent. The third respondent, without following the ratio 1:20, forwarded the candidates. if 1:20 ratio is followed, the petitioner would recommend for the post of conductor. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash the proceedings of the first respondent.

3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the third respondent has sponsored 1020 eligible candidates belonging to BC Non- Priority registered upto 30.06.1993 for the vacancies of 51 posts in the ratio of 1:20 and 1089 candidates registered upto 12.07.1995 for the vacancies of 53 posts for OC Non-Priority. The Seniority of the petitioner i.e., 02.08.1995 did not fall within the cut off dates of seniority 30.06.1993 and 12.07.1995 for the categories of BC and OC Non-Priority respectively.

4. Heard Both sides.

5. The age limit for BC is 35, which is not a dispute in both sides. Though the names were sponsored in the year 2007, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2009.There is two years of delay and laches. The seniority of the petitioner is from the date of 02.08.1995. An employment officer sponsoring candidates for the said posts, in which the cut off dates of the seniority are 30.06.1993 and 12.07.1995 for the categories of BC and OC Non-Priority respectively. Since the cut off dates have been fixed for sponsoring candidates for appointment, it cannot be stated by the writ petitioner that 1:20 ratios are not followed. In fact, 1:20 ratio properly followed and the sponsors were only made as per the G.O.6, dated 01.02.2002. Therefore, finding from any angle, now the petitioner is almost more than 46 years, therefore, it will not come under the G.O.6, dated 01.02.2002. There are laches and delay in approaching the Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

To

1.The Commissioner, Employment & Training Commission, Guindy, Chennai - 32.

2.The Director, Employment and Training, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

3.The District Employment Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil ? 629 001.

4.The General Manager, TamilNadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (Madurai Division III), Ranithottam, Nagercoil ? 629 001, Kanyakumari District.

.