Madras High Court
Thamizhaga Civil Supplies Corporation vs The Managing Director on 4 April, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.04.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.9594 of 2025
and W.M.P.Nos.10750 & 11401 of 2025
Thamizhaga Civil Supplies Corporation
Pattali Thozhil Sangam,
Rep. by its State General Secretary,
Mr.S.K.Maran
Having Address at No.16A, 1st Main Road,
Thirumalai Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 99. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
CMRL Office Campus,
Poonamalee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.
2.The General Manager (Administration)
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
CMRL Office Campus,
Poonamalee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the
1st respondent relating to the impugned circular dated 26.05.2022 in Circular
No.29/2022 and to quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:47:44 pm )
2
For Petitioner .. Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
For Respondents .. Mr.S.Ravi, Senior Counsel
For Mr.C.Selvaraj, Standing Counsel
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed by the Thamizhaga Civil Supplies
Corporation Pattali Thozhil Sangam questioning the circular issued by the
1st respondent by which, the assessment of the candidate is to be done had
been modified from grant of 85% for academic scores and 15% for
interview to 50% for academic score and 50% for interview. Advertisements
had been issued inviting applications in Madurai and Myladuthurai Zone
and the leaned Senior Counsel for the respondents stated that nearly about
5800 applications had been received. The main grievance raised by the
petitioner is that, by the circular, the method in which the candidates will be
assessed had been drastically changed and more weightage had been given
for interview and less for the academic qualifications.
2.The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents stated that for the
posts of Bill Clerk and Helper, the minimum academic qualification for Bill
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:47:44 pm )
Clerk is graduate and for Helper XII standard. It is contended that since
many applications had been received, to determine the suitability of the
candidates, in line with other recruitment processes of similar nature, the
methodology had been changed by granting 50% for personal assessment of
the candidates.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1991) 1 SCC 662,
Mohinder Sain Garg V. State of Punjab and others, wherein with respect
to the Subordinate Service in that particular case, it had been stated that an
allocation of more than 15% of total marks for viva voce would be
unreasonable and excessive. It had therefore been held that allocation of
25% of the total marks for viva voce was arbitrary and excessive. In that
particular judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the appointment
to the post of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. There were three written
papers in English, Punjabi and General Knowledge of B.A. standard. Those
who obtained 33% marks in each paper and 40% marks in aggregate would
be called for interview. The total marks for written test was 300 and for
interview was 100. That particular procedure had been assailed before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:47:44 pm )
Hon'ble Supreme Court and it had been stated that 15% of the total marks
should be reserved for viva voce.
4.The distinguishing factors are that the present selection process is
for seasonal workers and they would be at the job only during the season for
a maximum period of four months. There is no written test. Only suitability
will have to be examined. Once they possess the basic educational
qualification, they are eligible, but suitability will have to be assessed and
the only way in which that could be assessed is by a face to face interview
with the candidate. When viewed from this angle there is a logic behind
granting more marks for the interview.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that this
increase in the marks for interview had been done only to favour a few
candidates. But that statement is far fetched since the selection process had
just now commenced with the issuance of advertisement and no further
process had started.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:47:44 pm )
6.Let the procedure continue and if any individual candidate is
aggrieved, certainly that individual candidate has a right to take up his
grievance in manner known to law. But to stall the entire process when
nearly about 5800 applications had been received and many of them would
be hopeful of obtaining some job, even though it is only seasonal job, it
would not be prudent and I am not inclined to interfere with the nature of
the process contemplated by the respondents or with the circular issued. The
respondents may proceed further with the selection process in accordance
with the notification and circular issued by them.
7.With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
04.04.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
smv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:47:44 pm )
To,
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
CMRL Office Campus,
Poonamalee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.
2.The General Manager (Administration)
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
CMRL Office Campus,
Poonamalee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:47:44 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
04.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:47:44 pm )
