The court emphasized the provisional nature of the petitioner's appointment and the concept of useless formality in administrative decisions.

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in his Memo No.118088/R4/96.53 dated 13.1.1998, quash the same and direct the respondents to continue to employ the petitioner in service as Technical Assistant/Electrical in Regular Work Establishment Services of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the Office of the second respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a diploma holder (First Class) in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. He belongs to Backward Community. He was selected as Trainee in S.R.P. Tools Pvt. Ltd. in SIPCOT, Ranipet for a period of one year on a monthly stipend of Rs.1,000/-. As per the terms and conditions, if discontinued, he should pay the entire stipend received with a penalty. While undergoing training, the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. After interview, he was selected and appointed in the usual scale of pay and the Order of appointment dated 31.12.1997 was issued by the Superintending Engineer, REDC/Kancheepuram. (The Order recited that his appointment was subject to the result of W.A.Nos.1482, 1483 and 1498 of 1997). The petitioner joined duty on 3.1.1998 after settling the amounts with S.R.P.Tools Pvt. Ltd., (he repaid the stipend received with penalty for not completing the traineeship). In the Order of appointment, after his name the words 'S.C.' was found indicating the roaster of appointment. He pointed out that he was not a 'S.C.' candidate. Thereafter, he received an Office Memorandum dated 13.1.1998 that he was wrongly selected under the quota reserved for S.C. & S.T. The cut off mark for B.C. was much higher, and hence his provisional selection was cancelled. Inasmuch he was working from 3.1.1998 to 13.1.1998 he became a member of service and hence his appointment cannot be cancelled without following the procedure under the Service Rules. In fact, he was selected only under B.C. Quota; he had not suppressed any fact, he only brought to the notice that he did not belong to S.C. Community. There was several vacancies in the same post. Hence, the present writ petition to employ him in service as Technical Assistant/Electrical in Regular Work Establishment Services of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.

3. In the counter it is stated as follows:

(a) The petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. He belongs to B.C. Community. But, he was wrongly selected under the reserved quota for S.C. He was only intimated about his provisional selection. On verification it was found out that he belonged to 'B.C.' and not 'S.C.'. Therefore, his provisional selection was cancelled. The selection itself was subject to W.A.Nos.1482, 1483 and 1498 of 1997. The recruitment was made on merit; the cut off marks under the non-priority BC candidate was 82.3500, whereas the petitioner secured only 72.3485 marks. But, he got more than the cut-off marks prescribed for S.C. candidate. Under the wrong impression that the petitioner belonged to 'S.C.' community, he was selected provisionally. When the mistake was found out, it was cancelled. Therefore, there is no violation of any of the Service Rule nor principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection was made for 900 posts. Since he joined service on 3.1.1998 and continued in service till 13.1.1998, his appointment cannot be cancelled without issuing a show cause notice before such cancellation. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

In D.L. BOARD, CALCUTTA v.. JAFFAR IMAM [AIR 1966 SC 282] the Supreme Court has held as follows:

"There can be no doubt that when the appellant purports to exercise its authority to terminate the employment of its employees such as the respondents in the present case,