Madras High Court
Iyyammal vs The Secretary To Government on 1 December, 2023
W.P.No.8673, etc., of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.Nos.8673, 8674, 8675 & 8677 of 2011
Iyyammal ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8673 of 2011
A.Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8674 of 2011
Tamilselvi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8675 of 2011
Kalavathi ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8677 of 2011
vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribunal Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Adi-Dravidar Welfare,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Adi Dravida Welfare Officer,
Perambalur.
4.K.Amutha ... Respondents in all W.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for
the records of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 21.02.2011
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8673, etc., of 2011
bearing No.Na,Ka.11.17312/2011 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to appoint the petitioner in anyone of the vacancies in the post
of Cook in Adi-Dravida Welfare Students Hostel, Perambalur District and
pass such other orders.
In both the W.Ps.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Raja
for Mr.P.Arumugarajan
For RR1 to 3 : Mr.R.Neethi Perumal
Government Advocate
For R4 : Ms.M.Kaviya
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan
COMMON ORDER
The challenge in these Writ Petitions is with regard to the
appointment of the 4th respondent as a Cook and subsequently, appoint the
petitioners in any one of the vacancies in the post of Cook in the Adi
Dravida Welfare Students Hostel at Perambalur District.
2. Heard Mr.M.Raja, learned counsel for Mr.P.Arumugarajan,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.M.Kaviya, learned
counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8673, etc., of 2011
the 4th respondent.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are all registered
themselves in the Office of the District Employment Exchange and their
names have not been sponsored. The 3rd respondent herein had called for a
list of eligible candidates from the District Employment Officer and the
District Employment Officer had sponsored their names and they were also
called to attend the interview. They would submit that even though they
were fully qualified, the juniors in the Employment Exchange and persons
without cooking experience had been appointed under the impugned order.
Therefore they had challenged the same in this Writ Petition.
4. Mr.M.Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon
the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.16238 of 2001 dated
21.09.2001, to contend that the respondents therein who are also the
respondents herein have been directed to consider the case of the petitioner
therein as per the seniority on the role of the Employment Exchange. He
would submit that they had in violation of the aforesaid order had made the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8673, etc., of 2011
appointment. Therefore, he would seek to quash the order of appointment of
4th respondent and direct them to appoint the petitioners in any one of the
post.
5. Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, learned Government Advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the seniority in the
Employment Office, simpliciter does not entitle a person to be appointed. A
list of persons as per the seniority was called for from the Employment
Exchange Office and all the candidates who were nominated by the
Employment Exchange were issued with a call letter calling upon them to
attend an interview along with various documents including the experience
in cooking. Based upon their performance in the interview and based upon
the satisfaction of the certificates that had been produced by the concerned
candidates, the candidates were selected. Therefore, he would submit that
the contention that only as per the seniority of the Employment Exchange,
employment should be given is wholly misplaced. Further, based upon the
performance of the candidates in the interview they were evaluated and
appointments have been made. The petitioners had not made any specific
allegation that the 4th respondent herein has not produced such certificate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8673, etc., of 2011
Therefore, he would submit that there is no merits in the Writ Petition and
prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition.
6. Ms.M.Kaviya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th
respondent would submit that she had all necessary qualification for being
appointed as a Cook. She would further submit that the 4 th respondent had
also submitted her experience certificate as required by the respondents,
only on consideration of the same, she had been appointed.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record
before this Court.
8. It is an admitted case that the list of candidates were sponsored by
the Employment Exchange pursuant to the request made by the respondents
and the respondents had also conducted interview on 18.02.2011. The
reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, in my considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8673, etc., of 2011
opinion is wholly misplaced. The learned Judge had only directed the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein as per the seniority
in the Employment Exchange subject to their qualification and entitlement
as undertaken by the respondents. The said judgment had not directed
anything to be made based only on the seniority of the Employment
Exchange. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government
Advocate, the selection had been made pursuant to the interview. There is
no averment attacking the process of interview or not even any statement as
to that the interview was a farce is made.
9. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this Writ
Petition and same is accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.12.2023
gba
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8673, etc., of 2011
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribunal Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Adi-Dravidar Welfare,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The District Adi Dravida Welfare Officer,
Perambalur.
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
gba
W.P.Nos.8673, 8674, 8675 & 8677 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8673, etc., of 2011
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
