Madras High Court
K.Periyandavan vs The Director on 11 December, 2023
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.1922 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.1922 of 2023
AND
C.M.P.No.16501 of 2023
K.Periyandavan .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Director
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department
Ezhilagam Building, Chennai 600 005
2.The District Collector
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram
3.The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer
Kancheepuram District
Collectorate Campus, Kancheepuram .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order
dated 13.02.2019 passed in W.P.No.4116 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Gouthaman
For Respondents : Mr.Silambanan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A.No.1922 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
The appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the order dated
13.02.2019 passed by the learned Judge dismissing his writ petition in
WP.No.4116 of 2019 on the ground that he has approached the writ Court
belatedly and he has also not made out any acceptable ground for the purpose
of considering the relief sought for in the writ petition.
2.The aforesaid writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
the third respondent dated 26.03.2014, quash the same and consequently,
appoint the appellant as Secondary Grade Teacher in Adi-Dravidar Welfare
School at Kancheepuram District with effect from 2001 with all monetary and
service benefits to him. According to the appellant, though he is fully qualified
to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, the candidates who were not qualified
and younger than him were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, by
violating the employment seniority. The learned Judge, by order dated
13.02.2019, dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the
appellant is before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge
has failed to take note of the fact that there are lot of differences in the interview
list, selection list and appointment list prepared. The appellant's name was
omitted to be shown in the selection list without any rhyme or reason. In all, it is
stated that there are many irregularities and infirmities committed on the part of
the respondents in respect of interview list, ranking, selection, cut-off date
and appointment list and that, the appellant was continuously establishing his
rights by questioning his non-appointment right from his knowledge pursuant to
the call letter dated 29.01.2001. Stating so, the learned counsel prayed for
setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge and to grant the prayer as
sought for by him in the writ petition.
4.Upon notice, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents brought to our notice that no such juniors were taken for
appointment as alleged by the appellant and that, without adding them as
necessary parties in the writ petition, the appellant has approached the writ
Court and hence, the same was ultimately dismissed on laches, by the order
impugned herein, which does not require any interference by this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records
carefully and meticulously.
6.Firstly, the order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the third respondent
impugned in the writ petition states that no candidate was appointed in violation
of the employment seniority. The said order has been passed on the complaint
given by the appellant before the authorities, after due verification of the
records. Secondly, the appellant has not clearly pointed out anything so as to
establish that his juniors were already appointed, i.e., he has not established any
specific case of violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, this
Court is of the view that if at all his contention that his juniors in the
Employment Exchange have been selected is true, the appellant ought to have
impleaded them as necessary parties in the writ petition so as to establish his
claim, but he has not done so. Thirdly, the employment seniority of the year
2001 cannot be agitated at this length of time, i.e., after a period of about 17
years at the time of filing the writ petition and now, it is 21 years. Thus, the
learned Judge has correctly pointed out that the procedure of selection for
appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher underwent several changes
and the Teachers Recruitment Board is conducting a open selection process and
hence, the appellant has to participate only in the selection process conducted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
through the Board. Such findings rendered by the learned Judge cannot be
interfered with by this court.
7.Finding no merit, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
11.12.2023
Neutral Citation : Yes
gya
To
1.The Director
Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department
Ezhilagam Building
Chennai 600 005
2.The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram
3.The District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer
Kancheepuram District
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
