Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner belong to SC community and that he had also registered himself with the District Employment Office in the year 1996. He had not been sponsored for appointment to any post though several posts were allotted to the SC community. Thereafter, he obtained information through RTI and came to know that the 7th respondent had been appointed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis as Sanitary Worker under the BC – non priority quota. It had been stated that the 7th respondent actually belongs to Most Backward Community, but had registered himself as belonging to Backward Community and had obtained an interview letter. It was thus stated that the 7 th respondent had been shown favouritism by the 4th respondent and appointed as Sanitary Worker.

3.It had also been stated that the father of the 7th respondent, Palani, worked as Office Assistant and in his service register, the entry relating to community showed that he belongs to Jogi community / MBC. It had also been stated that the mother of the 7th respondent, Lakshmi was working as a Sanitary Worker in Palacode Town Panchayat Office, Palacode, Dharmapuri District and even in her service register, the entry showed that she belongs to Jogi community, which according to the petitioner is Most Backward Community. It is therefore stated that the 7th respondent, had surreptitiously got appointment under BC-non priority quota though according to the petitioner, he belonged to the Jogi community / MBC. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6.The learned counsel for the 7th respondent also stated that owing to a genuine mistake by the school authorities, he was not able to get a community certificate as Jogi (Hindu). It was also stated that the Jogi community is only a Backward community and not Most Backward community.

7.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced.

8.With respect to the locus of the petitioner, though the name of the petitioner had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange, since it is seen that the petitioner had actually registered himself in the District Employment Office in the year 1996 and had been waiting and waiting for over a period of nearly 20 years for his name to be sponsored for some post, I hold that it is only appropriate that since his name had never been sponsored though he belonged to SC community that the petitioner had acquired a right to know why he had been rejected by the Employment Exchange from being even sponsored for any employment. The petitioner gathered information under the RTI. This information divulged the fact that the 7th respondent had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis appointed to a post for BC-non priority quota, though he actually belonged to Most Backward Community.