Madras High Court
Ragavan vs The Member Secretary on 18 April, 2022
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 05.07.2022
PROUNOUNCED ON : 26.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.477 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4476 and 4478 of 2022
Ragavan ... Appellant
Vs.
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Forest Uniformed Services
Recruitment Committee (TNFUSRC),
No.1, Jennis Road, Panagal Maaligai,
8D-Floor, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent
against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2021, dated
18.04.2022.
For Appellant :Mr.G.Kannan
For Respondent :Mr.S.P.Maharajan
Special Government Pleader
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order passed
in Writ Petition W.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2021, dated 18.04.2022.
2. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order of
rejection of candidature issued by the respondent through
website, dated 27.01.2021, in so far as the petitioner (S.No.59,
in (Reg No.20020045637) is concerned for the post of Forest
Guard with License and consequently, to direct the respondent
to accept the petitioner's Driving Experience Certificates and
select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Forest Guard
with license within the stipulated time.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has
completed 10th standard in March, 2008, 12th standard in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
March 2010, has completed B.Tech. (Petro Chemical) and
possess LMV driving license, dated 13.12.2011. The appellant
had worked as a driver from 22.06.2015 to 04.06.2017 in M/s.
Shinsung Petrochemical Private Limited and now is working as
a driver in M/s. SRJ Roadways from July 2017 till November
2020 for a period of 3 years.
4. The petitioner has applied for the post of Forest
Guard and Forest Guard with license post as per the
Advertisement No.2 of 2019 through website on 30.11.2019.
The number of vacancies in respect of Forest Guard was
mentioned as 227 and Forest Guard with driving license with
current vacancy 2 posts and carry forward vacancies 91 posts
totally 320 vacancies. The Educational qualification
prescribed for this post is pass in Higher Secondary Course
(+2) with physics, chemistry, biology, zoology or botany as one
of the subject for the post of Forest Guard. For Forest Guard
with driving license, the prescribed qualification is same as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
Forest Guard with further qualification of a valid driving
license issued by competent authority and also certificates
from a reputed firm that the candidate should possess
experience in driving of Light Motor Vehicle and Heavy Motor
Vehicle for a period of not less than 3 years after getting
driving license and also that the candidate must possess First
Aid Certificate by recognized organization. The petitioner had
submitted an application on 07 / 08.02.2020 through online for
both the above said posts, i.e., for forest guard with or without
license through online. The respondent through another
notification in website, dated 07.03.2020 for the same posts
issued Advertisement No.2 of 2019, dated 30.11.2019,
whereby increased the vacancies for the said posts of 320
vacancies to 406.
5. Heard Mr.G.Kannan, the Learned Counsel for the
appellant and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, the Learned Special
Government Pleader and this Court after active consideration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
is passing the following order.
6. The contention of the appellant is that he is having
driving experience from 22.06.2015 to 04.06.2017 that is more
than 23 months in M/s. Shinsung Petrochemical Private
Limited and in another institution M/s. SRJ Roadways from
July 2017 till November 2020 i.e. more than 40 months. The
appellant is processing more than 63 months and the
experience required is only 36 months. The issue raised by the
respondent is that the appellant is in possession of driving
experience certificate from the 22.06.2015 to 04.06.2017 from
M/s.Shinsung Petrochemical Private Limited which is 23
months and from another institution M/s. SRJ Roadways,
which indicates the appellant has worked from July 2017 to
November 2020. Since the second certificate indicates that the
appellant is serving until November 2020, which means that
the appellant was not in possession of the said certificate as on
the date of application i.e. on 0802.2020. The respondent is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
giving a very strict interpretation by referring to the
paragraph No.8 subclause B(iii) where it has been stated as
under:
“iii. Must possess a certificate from a reputed
firm or company to the effect that the candidate
possesses experience in driving of light motor vehicles /
heavy motor vehicles for a period of not less than 3 years
after getting the driving license. “
7. The respondent is giving an interpretation that since
the appellant was not in possession of the second certificate as
on the date of application i.e. on 08.02.2020 and it had been
issued by covering the period of November 2020, the
respondent had come to the conclusion that the second
certificate of the appellant is not in “possession”. The
certificate only indicates that the appellant is having
experience and admittedly the appellant is having experience.
That too the advertisement states three years experience, i.e.
36 months experience. The appellant is having 63 months of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
experience. The appellant is in “possession of experience” as
on the date of application and only point is he is not having
certificate as on the date of application, but has produced the
certificate covering the subsequent period also. The claim of
the appellant is that since he has been continuously servicing
in the said institution, he has taken the certificate during
November 2020 and attended the certificate verification which
was conducted in January 2021.
8. Since the appellant is having more than 23 months
from the first certificate, the second certificate covers more
than 40 months and the respondent seeking only 36 months
experience (three years), the balance of seven months from
the second institution shall be taken. The respondent ought to
have taken that the appellant is in possession of certificate by
considering the period from July 2017 to February 2018 by
covering the said seven months and should consider the
second certificate issued by M/s. SRJ Roadways as valid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
certificate.
9. This Court is absolutely concerned to note that the
appellant is qualified B.Tech. (Petro Chemical) but serving as a
driver in M/s. SRJ Roadways. Now, he is seeking for a better
opportunity in the Forest Department. B.Tech. graduate is
seeking a forest watcher opportunity. If the said second
certificate is not considered, the appellant would be seriously
prejudiced.
10. The explanation of the appellant that since the
appellant is in continuous employment, in M/s. SRJ Roadways,
getting experience certificate from the firm during the period
of employment may lead to certain suspicion that he would
leave the job and that anxiety ought to be taken into account.
For all these practical difficulties, the appellant should be
considered by “functional interpretation” of the notification.
Whenever there is “logical defect in spirit of law”, functional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
interpretation ought to be invoked. In Girdhari Lal & Sons Vs
Balbir Nath Mathur & others reported in AIR 1986 SC 1499 it
has been held as under:
“Once Parliamentary intention is ascertained and the object
and purpose of the legislation is known, it then becomes the
duty of the court to give the statute a purposeful or a
functional interpretation. this is what is meant when, for
example, it is said that measures aimed at social amelioration
should receive liberal or beneficent construction. Again, the
words of a statute may not be designed to meet the several
uncontemplated forensic situations that may arise. The
draftsman may have designed his words to meet what Lord
Simon of Glaisdale calls the 'primary situation'. It will then
become necessary for the court to impute an intention to
Parliament in regard to 'secondary situations'. Such
'secondary intention' may be imputed in relation to a
secondary situation so as to best serve the same purpose as
the primary statutory intention does in relation to a primary
situation.”
In the present case the appellant is possessing the experience
for the three years as stated supra and it is only the second
certificate was obtained covering the subsequent period will
not vitiate the conditions in the notification. The respondent is
directed to consider the candidature of the appellant by
considering the period from July 2017 to February 2018 by
covering the said seven months and should consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
second certificate issued by M/s. SRJ Roadways as valid
certificate and include him in the selection list. The said
exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
11. With the above said observation, the Writ Appeal is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
26.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
Tmg
To
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Forest Uniformed Services
Recruitment Committee (TNFUSRC),
No.1, Jennis Road, Panagal Maaligai,
8D-Floor, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.477 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
W.A(MD)No.477 of 2022
26.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
