Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. Hariparanthaman, J.
J. Kovaisamy
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Employment & Training Department, Chennai – 600 009 and Others
W.P. No. 20290 of 2012
Decided on : 27 August 2014
Service Rules - Rule 57 - Punjab Civil Service Rules, 1930 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Post of Junior Assistant – Employment and service – Jurisdiction - When this writ petition was taken up for hearing on counsel for second respondent submitted that petitioner crossed upper age limit prescribed and therefore this Court directed second respondent to produce relevant regulations relating to age limit for recruitment to post of Technicians particularly for those who have undergone Apprenticeship Training and posted - This Court fourth respondent and ordered notice to fourth respondent with a direction to furnish details as to whether they sponsored name of petitioner for any employment - On next date of hearing, among other things it is submitted by District Employment Officer Chennai in person that name of petitioner was sponsored to Metropolitan Transport Corporation for post of Junior Assistant – Further this Court directed second respondent to furnish details pertaining questions raised by this Court and directed to produce rules relating to appointment to post of Junior Assistant and posted this petition - A direction was issued to second respondent to issue suitable instruction to highest authority in Personnel Department to appear before this Court with necessary file and instruction give proper assistance to this Court in respect of appointment to vacancies for post of Junior Assistant and adjourned this case today – Held, A similar view was taken in this case by Apex Court wherein issue was relating to promotion to post of Manager and above in appellant corporation - High Court held that allocating of marks for interview was bad basing - Apex Court held promotion to post of Manager and above was not based on written test and interview and therefore judgment of Apex Court could not be applied - Apex Court held that High Court was not justified in setting aside allocation of marks for viva voce test since promotion was not based on written test and interview but on different criteria - In these circumstances court of view that selection to Group C posts in any one of three Departments in Transport Corporations like respondent wherein direct recruitment takes place same shall be made based solely either on academic marks obtained in educational qualification when it is prescribed as by holding written test commensurate with qualification prescribed - In case of posts for which prescribed educational qualification is less than like post of Driver or prescribed qualification is a degree wherein it is difficult to assess candidates on basis of academic performance since they are from different streams of examination conducted by examining authorities selection shall be based solely on written test in commensurate with qualification prescribed under Rules - In this case also selection was made exclusively based on interview is bad - However court not inclined to go into selection already made particularly selected persons are not made as parties and further they are serving for some time - In these circumstances those appointments cannot be set aside - However court inclined to give one more opportunity to petitioner to participate in next selection process as he of age when he filed this writ petition and thereby he was well within upper limit prescribed for his category for post of Junior Assistant at that time - Accordingly respondents are directed to give opportunity to petitioner to participate in the next selection process without reference to present age of petitioner - Petition disposed of
1. Heard both sides.
2.0. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is aged 44 years. He registered his name in the Employment Exchange long back for more than two decades and still he is not able to get employment.
2.1. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing on 11.07.2014, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner crossed the upper age limit prescribed and therefore, this Court directed the second respondent to produce the relevant regulations relating to the age limit for recruitment to the post of Technicians, particularly, for those who have undergone Apprenticeship Training and posted it on 23.07.2014.
2.2. On 23.07.2014, this Court suo-motu impleaded the fourth respondent and ordered notice to the fourth respondent with a direction to furnish the details as to whether they sponsored the name of the petitioner for any employment from 1988 to 2012.
2.3. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 31.07.2014, among other things, it is submitted by the District Employment Officer, Chennai, in person, that the name of the petitioner was sponsored to the Metropolitan Transport Corporation for the post of Junior Assistant.
2.4. Further, on 14.08.2014 this Court directed the second respondent to furnish details pertaining to 7 questions raised by this Court and directed to produce the rules relating to appointment to the post of Junior Assistant and posted this petition on 20.08.2014.
2.5. On 20.08.2014, a direction was issued to the second respondent to issue suitable instruction to the highest authority in the Personnel Department to appear before this Court with necessary file and instruction on 27.08.2014 to give proper assistance to this Court in respect of appointment to the vacancies for the post of Junior Assistant and adjourned this case today.
2.6. Today, I heard the concerned officials and the respective counsels at length.
3. Now, law is well settled that appointment to public employment shall be made not only through Employment Exchanges, but also through advertisement in newspapers, announcing in radio and television etc., calling for applications from all the eligible candidates through open market. Hence, the sponsorship through Employment Exchange lost relevance after the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above terms in the judgment in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 : (2011) 4 MLJ 692.
Unfilled vacancies in the Respondent Corporation:
4. In this case, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai has Branches/Depots with places that falls within the jurisdiction of Chennai Municipal Corporation limit, in Tiruvallur District and in Kancheepuram District.
5. In the year 2012, 200 vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant arose in the Depots that are situated within the Chennai Municipal Corporation limit. Hence, the Transport Corporation addressed the Employment Exchange, Chennai to sponsor the list of candidates. Accordingly, 981 names were sponsored. When call letters were sent to those persons, only 423 candidates participated in the interview. Out of 423 candidates, only 42 candidates alone were selected and appointed. Therefore, there remains the unfilled vacancies.
6(i). Thereafter, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation addressed letters to employment exchanges, as follows, to fill up the vacancies of 290 posts of Junior Assistants.
(ii). The Metropolitan Transport Corporation addressed a letter to the Employment Exchange, Chennai to sponsor names to fill 150 vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant.
(iii). Likewise, the Metropolitan Transport Corporation sent a letter to the Kancheepuram Employment Exchange to sponsor the names to fill 70 vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant.
(iv). Another letter was sent by the Metropolitan Transport Corporation to Tiruvallur Employment office to fill 70 vacancies of Junior Assistant.
7. Accordingly, Chennai Employment Exchange sponsored the names of 742 candidates; Kancheepuram Employment Exchange
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
