Back
Madras High Court
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
Thiru. P. Pandyrajan
Versus
The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Nellai) Ltd., Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli District & Another
W.P.(MD)No.11104 of 2012 & W.P.(MD)Nos.11105 to 11110, 12797, 11150, 11285 to 11294, 12740, 12773, 11485 to 11489, 12494 to 12496, 11840, 11841, 11823, 12209, 12162, 12281 to 12284, 12335, 12513, 12336, 12519, 12555, 11686 to 11692, 11953, 11964, 11713, 12058, 12059, 12075 to 12079, 12161, 12148, 12541, 12528 to 12530, 12354 to 12356, 12170, 12288 to 12289, 11477, 12936 and 12973 of 2012 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On : 11-10-2012
Common Order in 129 writ petitions challenging the process of selection for the posts of Conductors and Technicians in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) and seeking age relaxation of five years as per G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006. The Court held that the process of selection adopted by TNSTC is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and quashed the impugned notifications. It also directed TNSTC to advertise the posts in leading newspapers and make the selection purely on merit. The Court further held that the petitioners are entitled to the age relaxation of five years as per G.O.Ms.No.98.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are candidates for the posts of Conductors and Technicians in TNSTC, challenged the selection process and sought age relaxation of five years as per G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006. The respondents, TNSTC, contended that the selection process was in accordance with the rules and that the petitioners were not entitled to age relaxation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the process of selection adopted by TNSTC was hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it was arbitrary and violated the petitioners' right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The Court also found that the petitioners were entitled to the age relaxation of five years as per G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006.
Issues: 1. Whether the process of selection adopted by TNSTC is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the age relaxation of five years as per G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the process of selection adopted by TNSTC was hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it was arbitrary and violated the petitioners' right to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The Court relied on the following precedents: - State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and Others (2011(1) SCT 208) - State of Orissa and Another..VS. Mamata Mohanty (2011 (2) S.C.T. 718) - P.M.Malathi v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2012 (3) M.L.J. 669) 2. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the age relaxation of five years as per G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006. The Court relied on the following precedents: - G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006 - Rule 54-B of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules
Final Decision: The Court allowed all the writ petitions and issued the following directions: 1. A writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned Notifications, calling the names for appointment to the posts of Conductors and Technicians only through employment exchanges. 2. A writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents, (a) to advertise the posts in all leading newspapers, having wide circulation, and display the Notification on the Notice Board or by announcement in radio and television, so as to enable all the eligible candidates to apply for the posts; The advertisement should disclose number of posts, reserved posts and eligibility conditions etc., (b) to interview the eligible candidates as per the criteria to be laid down by the Selection Committee and selection be made purely on merit and not on the employment seniority. 3. All the appointments for filling up the posts in pursuance to the Notifications were stayed by this Court. Therefore, if any selection has been made in violation of the Stay order granted by this Court, it shall not give any right to the selected candidates for appointment / or to continue in the post. 4. In view of the fact that number of posts are lying vacant, it would be appreciated that the advertisement in the leading newspapers, having wide circulation be published preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
1. This common order shall dispose of W.P.(MD)Nos.11104 to 11110, 12797, 11150, 11285 to 11294, 12740, 12773, 11485 to 11489, 12494 to 12496, 11840, 11841, 11823, 12209, 12162, 12281 to 12284, 12335, 12513, 12336, 12519, 12555, 11686 to 11692, 11953, 11964, 11713, 12058, 12059, 12075 to 12079, 12161, 12148, 12541, 12528 to 12530, 12354 to 12356, 12170, 12288 to 12289, 11477, 12936 and 12973 of 2012, as the question of law raised in all these writ petitions are identical.
2. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners pray for issuance of Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to consider the cases of the petitioners, for appointment, by giving five years age relaxation as per G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006, and the petitioners have also challenged the process of selection, for the post of Conductors and Technicians, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the selection is being conducted, by inviting applications through Employment Exchange alone, without inviting applications from all eligible candidates through Press Notification.
3. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from W.P.(MD)No.12336 of 2012.
4. The petitioner got Conductor License No.2564 of 1997 dated 24.10.1997, and got his name registered with the District Employment Officer, Kanniyakumari District. The Registration Number of the petitioner is 515 of 1999. The petitioner belongs to Backward Community. It is submitted by the petitioner, that even after 11 years of registration with the employment exchange, he has not yet been sponsored for the post of Conductor, whenever the posts were advertised, for want of seniority.
5. During the years 2007, 2010 and 2011, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Nellai) limited, selected 800 candidates, for the post of Conductor, and the recruitment was made through the District Employment Exchange. At the time of those selections, the upper age limit was fixed at 40 years, for Backward and Most Backward Community, by giving five years age relaxation as per G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006.
6. It is submitted, that now there is a proposal to fill up 200 posts of Bus Conductors in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, and for the process of selection, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation had issued instructions vide Reference No.6362/a2/TNSTC(TVL)/Ngl/2012 dated 22.08.2012. As per the Notification, the Interview was proposed to be conducted on 04.09.2012, for eligible candidates sponsored by the District Employment Officer. It is also submitted, that the upper age limit of eligibility, for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is fixed at 40 years, whereas for Backward and Most Backward Classes at 35 years, and for general category, age fixed is 30 years. The District Employment Officer, has forwarded the list of candidates, for appointment taking into consideration the age limits, as notified.
7. It is also the submission of the petitioner that vide G.O.Ms.No.212 Personnel and Administration Department dated 30.11.2001, a ban was imposed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, for filling up vacancies in the State, and it was on the lifting of the ban, that G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administration Department dated 17.07.2006 was issued, giving relaxation of five years, to enable the unemployed youth, to apply for the Government jobs.
8. It is the submission of the petitioner that G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006, was in force when the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation requested the District Employment Officer, to sponsor the candidates, for the post of Conductor, and as such, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation was bound to follow G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.2006. But, the respondents, by ignoring G.O.Ms.No.98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.07.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
