Madras High Court
P.Vadivel vs Food Corporation Of India on 7 July, 2023
Writ Appeal Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
and M.P.Nos.1 of 2011 and 1 of 2012
P.Vadivel ... Appellant/ Petitioner in both W.As.
Vs
1. Food Corporation of India,
rep. By Managing Director,
16-20, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Executive Director (Personnel)
Food Corporation of India,
16-20, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi- 110 001.
3. Tulsidass
4. Patcha Siddaiah
5. M.Jagadeesan ... Respondents in both W.As.
PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order dated 27.01.2009 made in W.P.Nos.15354 and 15355 of
1994 of 2008 respectively and allow these writ appeals.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Jenasenan
[in both W.As.]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/7
Writ Appeal Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
For Respondent : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran [R1 & R2]
[in both W.As.]
No appearance [R3 to R5]
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was made by Mr.R.SURESH KUMAR.,J.)
These appeals have been directed against the order passed by the
Writ Court dated 27.01.2009 made in W.P.Nos.15354 and 15355 of
1994 of 2008.
2. The appellant was selected and appointed as Assistant Grade -
III at the respondent Corporation in the year 1976. Thereafter, he was
given promotion as Assistant Grade - II in the year 1983. In that capacity,
when he was working, a notification was issued by the respondent Food
Corporation of India for appointment by way of special drive for
recruitment of SC and ST candidates under various sectors, one such post
was ear marked under the notification dated 10.08.1992 is Deputy
Manager (General Administration). For that post, there were 13
vacancies, out of which, 9 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste
candidates and 4 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. The
qualification prescribed in the notification is, the candidate must be a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/7
Writ Appeal Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
graduate and Diploma in Business Management with five years
experience in Food and Allied Field and the maximum age is 35 years.
3. According to the appellant, he was eligible to apply for the post,
therefore, he applied. The method of selection is only by way of
conducting an interview and the appellant was also gone for interview,
which was conducted on 25.01.1994. After completing the process of
selection, selection has been made, where the appellant has not been
selected. Therefore, challenging the non-selection of the appellant, who
approached the Writ Court and filed two writ petitions viz.,
W.P.Nos. 15354 and 15355 of 1994. The first writ petition is for the
prayer of writ of declaration to declare the proceedings of the Executive
Director (Personnel), Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, i.e., the
second respondent therein as illegal and arbitrary and the prayer in the
second writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1
and 2 therein to appoint the petitioner to one of the posts of Deputy
Manager (General Administration) notified in the advertisement made by
the second respondent dated 10.08.1982.
4. Both the writ petitions were heard together and the Writ Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/7
Writ Appeal Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
by order dated 27.01.2009, by its exhaustive judgment has rejected both
the writ petitions. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeals have
been filed.
5. Assailing the said order passed by the Writ Court,
Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the appellant was fully eligible to hold the post of Deputy
Manager (General Administration) and he belonged to SC community he
was fully eligible to be considered for such appointment and according to
him, the appellant has performed well in the interview conducted. When
that being so, the non-selection of the appellant by the respondent
Corporation is without any plausible reason.
6. He was further stated that insofar as his qualification is
concerned, he is not only fully qualified to hold the post but he is having
the over qualification. Therefore, according to him comparing with any
other candidate, who have come before the interview board and who had
been selected ultimately, merit as well as the performance in the interview
of the appellant is comparatively high. Therefore, at any cost he should
have been selected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/7
Writ Appeal Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
7. When this point had been raised before the learned Judge, who
has considered these aspects at length and passed a very detailed order,
which is impugned herein.
8. We have gone through the import of the said order and the
reasoning given by the learned Judge in reaching the conclusion that in
making the said selection by rejecting the candidature of the appellant,
there has been no bias, prejudice and mala-fide on the part of the
respondent Department.
9. The learned Judge in paragraph 88(ix) has stated the following:
“88....
(ix) In the absence of proof of allegations of bias,
mala fide, favouritism and nepotism in the selection, Court
cannot interfere with the assessment of a duly constituted
selection committee, consisting of experts of hight status.
It is also well settled that whenever allegations of mala
fide are levelled, specific instances have to be quoted and
the person against whom the allegations are levelled
should be arrayed as party respondents to the
proceedings to rebut such allegations of malafide.”
10. Therefore, whatever the allegations that has been made or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/7
Writ Appeal Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
ground that has been urged by the appellant, who stood as a petitioner
before the Writ Court having been considered a complete answer has
been given by the learned Judge and thereby, he has rejected those writ
petitions, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said
judgment. Accordingly, these writ appeals fail, hence, it is dismissed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
07.07.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
To
1.The Managing Director
Food Corporation of India,
16-20, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Executive Director (Personnel)
Food Corporation of India,
16-20, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi- 110 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/7
Writ Appeal Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
mp
W.A.Nos.617 and 618 of 2011
07.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/7
