Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 684
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
V. Saravanan
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai & Another
W.P. No.8018 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 09-02-2011
For the Petitioner:R. Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:B. Sekar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a petitioner's candidature is rejected, the appropriate remedy is to challenge the order rejecting the candidature, and no writ of Mandamus can be issued in such a scenario.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Appointment Dispute - The court dismissed the petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner, as the petitioner's candidature was rejected, and the remedy, if any, was to challenge the order rejecting his candidature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for appointment with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, was directed to appear before the selection committee, but was later informed that he was not selected due to being over age.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no writ of Mandamus could be issued to consider the petitioner's representation, as the remedy, if any, was to challenge the order rejecting his candidature.
Issues: The issue was whether the court should issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as the petitioner's candidature was rejected, the appropriate remedy, if any, was to challenge the order rejecting his candidature.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner.
2. The case set up by the petitioner, is that the petitioner, being fully eligible for the post, applied for appointment, with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In response to the application, the petitioner was directed to fill up form, and produce it before selection committee on 15.10.2008.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the letter dated 29.09.2008, the petitioner appeared before the selection committee, but thereafter, till date, he has not received any information regarding selection.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was informed, that he was not selected, being over age.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reason given is not available to the respondents, in view of G.O. laying down, that bar of age limit is not applicable to Backward class candidates, if they possess qualification higher than minimum general qualification.
6. In the writ petition, no case is made out to show that the petitioner was eligible. In any case, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he has not chosen to challenge the order, rejecting his candidature for appointment being over age. The selected candidates have also not been made party to this writ.
7. In view of the admitted position, that candidature of the petitioner was rejected, rightly or wrongly, no writ of Mandamus can be issued to consider his representation, as the remedy, if any with the petitioner, is to challenge the order, rejecting his candidature. If copy is not available, it could be got under RTI Act.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
