Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

http://www.judis.nic.in

2. The brief facts of the case is stated as follows:

The writ petitioner is a graduate in M.Sc.(Agriculture). He joined as Assistant Grade-III on 28.10.2009 and promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II (Technical) in June 2013 in the respondent corporation, at present working at Salem. The 1st respondent corporation had issued an Advertisement on 02.06.2015, inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Management Trainee(Technical). The writ petitioner applied for the said post. As per condition in the application, he made an application to issue 'No Objection Certificate' from the 2nd respondent, through proper channel on 03.06.2016. He was permitted to attend written examination without furnishing the No Objection Certificate, he was called for group discussion and thereafter he appeared for interview on 30.06.2016, at that stage, the writ petitioner obtained NOC from the 2nd respondent and submitted to the 1st respondent and secured 53.63 marks in the aforesaid selection. But unfortunately, the writ petitioner's name was not found in the final result, for the reason that the NOC was submitted, after closing date. Hence the 1st respondent rejected the selection of the writ petitioner for the post of Management Trainee(Technical). Challenging the same, the present writ petition is http://www.judis.nic.in filed.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, as per Clause 36 of the advertisement dated 02.06.2015, the departmental candidates are eligible to be appointed, subject to the possession of 'No Objection Certificate' from their employer, which shall be required to be sent/uploaded along with their essential enclosures in case of their shortlisting on the basis of the written examination at the designated address/website, which shall be informed/notified through the designated website. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his NOC at the time of interview conducted by the 1st respondent corporation.

11. The 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit, has stated that the the writ petitioner applied for NOC on 03.06.2015 and asked to furnish the same on or before 02.07.2015 as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement No.4 of 2015 and declaration made by the writ petitioner, in his online application. But, the writ petitioner did not possess the NOC on the closing date of the application, in terms of the advertisement. The writ petitioner approached the Area Manager http://www.judis.nic.in for issuance of NOC on the ground that he was shortlisted for group discussion and to attend for interview. Immediately, the same was processed and issued NOC dated 27.04.2016 by the 2nd respondent.

14. Insofar the present case in hand is concerned, as per Clause 36 of the advertisement, the writ petitioner has submitted the NOC at the time of group discussion and interview, immediately after receipt of the same from the 2nd respondent.

15. Therefore, the rejection of appointment to the petitioner, who is a departmental candidate by relying upon Clause 8 of the advertisement is not proper, since the instructions given in the said clause is for the candidates applying from other departments including the respondent department. Therefore the said Clause 8 shall be construed as only directory and not mandatory. Further, the Area Manager of the 2nd respondent recommended the first respondent for issuance of NOC to the petitioner within a time i.e. on 05.02.2016 itself. The 2nd respondent in their counter affidavit has also admitted the fact that due to the extraordinary circumstances, the NOC could not be issued within the prescribed time.