Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 931
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
Muniappan
Versus
District Collector & Others
Writ Petition No. 4312 of 2009 & M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Decided On: 14-02-2013
For the Petitioner:V. Bharathidasan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R. Ravichandran, AGP, R2, P.S. Jayakumar, R3, S. Parthasarathy, Advocates.
Appointment through Employment Exchange alone is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Appointment Dispute - The court held that appointment through Employment Exchange alone is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent's reliance on complaints without verification and failure to advertise the post for all eligible persons to compete were unconstitutional. The appointment of the third respondent was quashed, and the second respondent was directed to fill the post by giving due publicity and selecting the best person.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Sweeper. The petitioner's name was not sponsored for employment by the District Employment Officer, and the third respondent was selected as 'Sweeper cum Sanitary Worker'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment through Employment Exchange alone violated constitutional provisions. The reliance on complaints without verification and failure to advertise the post for all eligible persons to compete were unconstitutional. The appointment of the third respondent was quashed, and the second respondent was directed to fill the post by giving due publicity and selecting the best person.
Issues: The issues included the competence of the writ, the denial of appointment to the petitioner, and the selection process through the Employment Exchange.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that appointment through Employment Exchange alone is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The reliance on complaints without verification and failure to advertise the post for all eligible persons to compete were unconstitutional.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the appointment of the third respondent was quashed, and the second respondent was directed to fill the post by giving due publicity and selecting the best person.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents nos.1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Sweeper with the 2nd respondent.
2. Though the writ as framed is not competent, as this Court can only direct the respondent to consider the claim of the eligible persons and cannot issue direction for appointment of any individual. However, in this case, after issuance of notice of motion, it was pointed out that the third respondent was selected as "Sweeper cum Sanitary Worker".
3. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the second respondent, this Court, on 23.2.2011 passed the following order:
"It is stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent that one Mr. N. Sivakumar has been appointed as Sweeper in second respondent Town Panchayat on 2.3.2009. In view of that he is a necessary party and without his presence, the matter cannot be decided. Therefore, this court suo motu impleads the said person as third respondent in this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take notice on the newly impleaded party returnable by 14.3.2011. Private notice is also permitted."
4. In pursuance of the order passed by this court, notice was issued to the third respondent. In view of the fact that this court has taken suo-motu action and impleaded the third respondent, it will be appropriate to modify the relief claimed on admitted facts.
5. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner got his name registered with the Erode District Employment Exchange on 24.3.1998 with Registration No.910/98. The name of the petitioner was sponsored for employment by the District Employment Officer to the second respondent for the post of Sweeper. The petitioner was interviewed on 26.12.2008. The petitioner at the time of interview produced the educational qualification certificate showing that he was a V pass and also the experience of working as Scavanger and Sweeper at Erode Hindu School.
6. Two other ladies were also interviewed along with the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was the best among three. The stand of the writ petitioner is that though interview was held on 26.12.2008, no order of appointment was issued. The petitioner also issued legal notice on 19.2.2009 challenging the denial of the appointment to the petitioner.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to his selection, he was entitled for appointment and has approached this Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction. As already stated above, the writ petition as framed is not maintainable, as even the selected candidate has no right to claim appointment.
8. The counter has been filed by the second respondent. The second respondent submits that in pursuance of the interview held on 26.12.2008, nobody was selected and accordingly, fresh requisition was sent to Employment Exchange. The District Employment Officer, thereafter, sent the names of five persons, which did not include the name of the petitioner. After holding the interview, the third respondent, being the best person, out of five, was selected. The reason for not considering the petitioner for appointment was that there were certain complaints received from general public, that he had wrongly represented himself to be the employee of the second respondent, therefore, was not a fit person for appointment.
9. The learned counsel for the second respondent, contends, that once the petitioner was not even in the zone of consideration, he has no right to challenge the selection of the third respondent nor is entitled to seek appointment as Sweeper cum Sanitary Worker.
10. The third respondent has filed separate counter and has challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ is not maintainable as the petitioner has not challenge the selection of the third respondent therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
11.
