Madras High Court
N.S.Saravanan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 24 October, 2024
W.P.No.8958 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.8958 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
N.S.Saravanan ... Petitioner
versus
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Transport,
Fort St.George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai.
3.The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation
(Tamil Nadu) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai.
4.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Limited,
Tirunelveli.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8958 of 2015
5.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kovai) Limited,
No.37, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore - 43. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of declaration, declaring the interviews conducted
by the 2nd to 5th respondents for the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) is
against the concept of transparency and fairness and thereby the same is
illegal and consequently direct the respondents to conduct interviews with
men of high integrity, caliber and qualification and those interviews should
be recorded in video formats as mentioned in the judgment of Supreme
Court reported in (1981) 1 SCC 722 and direct the respondents to appoint
the petitioner as Junior Engineer (Trainee) in any one of the respondent
Corporation based on his merit and ability.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Muthukumar
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.R.Balaji
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader (SETC)
For Respondent No.4 : M/s.T.Kavya
for Mr.C.Gauthamaraj
For Respondent No.5 : Mr.Dayanand for
Mr.Sundaravadanam
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8958 of 2015
ORDER
The writ petition is filed to declare the interviews conducted by the
respondents 2 to 5 for the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) as illegal and
for consequential direction to the respondents to conduct interviews by
having men of high integrity in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in [1981] 1 SCC 722 and for a further direction to the
respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Engineer Trainee.
2. The petitioner had completed Diploma in Automobile
Engineering in the year 1995 and he is also holding light and heavy driving
license and he got himself registered with the Employment Office at
Villupuram. According to the petitioner, in the Villupuram District, as per
the District Employment seniority, he is a senior candidate and has been
waiting from 1998 onwards and further he has also put in 12 years of
service in a private industry.
3. After completion of the Diploma course, the petitioner had an
opportunity to undergo Apprenticeship training in the Tamil Nadu State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited at Trichy during the year
1999 to 2000 and was also referred to The Director, Central Board of
Apprenticeship Training (Southern Region), Taramani, Chennai and after
completion of Apprenticeship, he was also awarded with a certificate on
11.12.2000.
4. In the year 2014, the respondent Corporations decided to issue
a public advertisement to call for the eligible candidates to take part in the
selection from across the State and an advertisement was also issued on
02.11.2014 with regard to the selection of “Junior Engineer (Trainee)”. It is
the case of the petitioner that there were 13 vacancies in the second
respondent corporation, 21 vacancies in the third respondent corporation, 6
vacancies in the fourth respondent corporation, and 11 vacancies in the fifth
respondent corporation and thereby there were totally 51 vacancies but
however, the advertisement was issued only for one post.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the advertisement had
not been issued at the state level, however it has been issued only by the
individual corporation on 02.11.2014 for appointment of one vacant post of
“Junior Engineer (Trainee)”, when there were 21 vacancies are available.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The petitioner had applied for the said post and also received a call for an
interview on 12.12.2014. The petitioner's grievance is that the interview was
not conducted in a proper manner and therefore he had sent a letter to the
first respondent on 02.03.2015. With the above, the writ petition is filed to
declare the interviews conducted by the respondents 2 to 5 for the post of
Junior Engineer (Trainee) as illegal.
6. When the petitioner had applied and also participated in the
interview and when he has filed the writ petition with a consequential
prayer to appoint him as “Junior Engineer (Trainee)”, the petitioner had not
questioned the selection of any successful candidate in respect of the one
admitted vacant post for which advertisement was issued and had also not
made the selected candidate as a party to the writ petition.
7. From the averments in the affidavit, it is seen that the stand of
the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in issuing advertisements
and notifying the vacancy of the post is not proper, however the relief
sought for in the writ petition is only to declare the interviews conducted by
the respondents as illegal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Admittedly, when the third respondent had issued an
advertisement calling for one vacant post, the petitioner had not
substantiated with necessary materials as to the notifications issued by the
other respondent Corporations and also the vacancies notified by them for
which selections were made.
9. The fact remains that the writ petition has been preferred as
early as 2015 in respect of selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee)
and the petitioner having been participated in the interviews in which the
third respondent had advertised for one post of Junior Engineer (Trainee) to
be filled up, in the absence of any other materials or challenge made to the
selection, the relief sought for in the writ petition at this length of time to
declare the interviews conducted cannot be adjudicated.
10. In view of the above directions, the Writ Petition stands
dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to challenge any selection that
has been made in violation of any of the procedures or rules, if the petitioner
is so advised.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
24.10.2024
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
sri
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Transport,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Managing Director,
Metropolitan Transport Corporation
(Chennai) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai.
3.The Managing Director,
State Express Transport Corporation
(Tamil Nadu) Limited,
Pallavan Salai, Chennai.
4.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Tirunelveli) Limited, Tirunelveli.
5.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kovai) Limited,
No.37, Mettupalayam Road,
Coimbatore - 43.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
24.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
