Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that on 06.02.2007, a letter was addressed to the Third Respondent/District Employment Officer,Karur to furnish the list of eligible persons to the Village Assistant Post and on 27.02.2007, the said application was represented for rectifying the defects mentioned by the Third Respondent. Further, on receipt of list from the Third Respondent/District Employment Officer, Karur, an intimation was sent on 28.03.2007 to attend the interview on 09.04.2007. The interview was postponed because the list submitted by the Third Respondent had not complied with the 33% Women Quota in accordance with the letter X 2(2)79191/06 dated 13.03.2007. As such the revised list/rectified list was received from the Third Respondent office on 03.04.2007 and interview cards were sent to all persons whose names were found in the list to attend the interview on 16.04.2007. The Petitioner attended the interview for obtaining the approval/concurrence of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai, entire file was sent to him on 16.04.2007. At this stage, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 30.03.2007 which was received by the Second Respondent on 24.05.2007. As per the said Government Order, for filling up vacancy in any employment in Government Departments, the Employment Exchange shall sponsor candidates in the ratio of 1:1 as per seniority of registration, who are in the live register.

11.The learned Government Advocate submits that the Petitioner failed to renew his employment card and thereby his record was transferred to dead register and indeed his registration was not on live register on the date of submission of candidates for the post of Village Assistant and also that he again renewed his registration on concession only on 30.08.2007.

12.The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that in the proceedings of the Second Respondent/Tahsildar addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai dated 16.04.2007, the name of the Writ Petitioner has found at Serial No.8 and that the Petitioner belongs to a Backward Community. In the said proceedings, the Second Respondent/Tahsildar has requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kulithalai to publish the list of persons, who have been selected for the post of Village Assistants and further he has mentioned that he has enclosed the certificates and the Employment Exchange Office list for perusal.

23.It is not in dispute that the Petitioner's name finds a place in Serial No.8 of the Second Respondent/Tahsildar proceedings, dated 16.04.2007 as one selected for the post of Village Assistant along with seven others. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner's name has been selected as one of the candidates for the post of Village Assistant has not been cancelled so far. However, the Government has issued instructions, in G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 30.03.2007 which was received by the Second Respondent on 24.05.2007 as per the said instructions for filing up vacancy in any employment in any Department, the ratio of 1:1 shall be followed in regard to the sponsoring of candidates as per seniority of registration, who are in the live register. Subsequently, on 08.08.2007, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.429, ordering for the recruitment of Village Assistants from the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as per seniority of registration, who are in the live register in the ratio of 1:5. The Third Respondent sent the list by sponsoring the candidates in the ratio of 1:5 on 20.08.2007 and interview letters were issued on 21.08.2007 in the interview to be held on 30.08.2007. Only because of the revised instructions issued by the Government, the name of the Petitioner was not found in the list sent by the Third Respondent. Moreover, the Petitioner failed to renew his registration and his registration was transferred to the dead register on the date of sponsoring of list to the post of Village Assistant to the Tahsildar, Kulithalai. In short, the Petitioner's name was not on the live register. Earlier, his registration was alive when the Second Respondent notified 8 posts of Village Assistant during April 2007 and therefore his name was sponsored to the Second Respondent for the post of Village Assistant. The Second Respondent/Tahsildar had cancelled the vacancies due to administrative reasons. When the Second Respondent/Tahsildar again notified 8 vacancies of Village Assistant on 20.08.2007 and made a request to sponsor the candidates in the ratio of 1:5 and when the eligible list of candidates were sent on 20.08.2007 as per the notification, the Petitioner failed to renew his Employment card and therefore his name was transferred to the dead register and his registration was not on the live register on the date of submission of candidates for the post of Village Assistant and he renewed his registration on concession on 30.08.2007. The Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on 28.08.2007 before the registry. After filing of the Writ Petition, he renewed his registration on concession on 30.08.2007. As stated earlier, his name was not on the live register on the date of sponsoring of the candidates for the post of Village Assistant as his registration was transferred to the dead register.

26. Looking at from any angle and on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court comes to an resulted conclusion that the Petitioner has not challenged G.O.Ms.No.429 dated 08.08.2007 and also his name on the date of sponsoring of list was transferred to the dead register by the Third Respondent and he only renewed his registration on concession on 30.08.2007. In short, his registration was not on the live register on the date of submission of candidates for the post of Village Assistant. When the earlier vacancies were cancelled by the Second Respondent/Tahsildar due to administrative reasons, the Petitioner cannot seek a relief in directing the First Respondent to approve his selection as Village Assistant as per proceedings of the Second Respondent, dated 16.04.2007 on par with other selected candidates.Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner sans merits and accordingly fails.