Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Mad) 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
P. Sreeram and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Chairman, Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.Nos.15196, 15197, 31491, 31492 and 31550 of 2016 and WMP.Nos.27322, 27323, 27324, 27325, 27389, 27389, 13243 and 13244 of 2016
Decided On : 02-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. K. Subhashini, M/s. Chennai Law Associates, M/s. L. Chandrakumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Jeyesh 'B' Dolia, M/s. Aiya and Dolia

The judgment establishes the principle that meritoriously selected candidates should be given the opportunity to opt for appointment to a lower-paying post if they are willing and fulfill the eligibility criteria.

Headnote:
Appointment Orders - Selection Process - Notification No.CMRL/HR/01/2013 - W.P.Nos.15196 and 15197 of 2016, W.P.Nos.31491, 31492 and 31550 of 2016 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the selection process and appointment orders issued by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) for the posts of Station Controller, Train Operator, and Junior Engineer. It refers to the essential qualifications, selection methodology, and the issuance of appointment orders. The court analyzes the cancellation of the earlier notification and the subsequent advertisement for filling up 41 posts of Junior Engineer Grade-II (Station Control) with a lesser scale of pay. The judgment also considers the legal principles related to the right to appointment and the authority of the executive in administrative matters.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who had completed Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, participated in the selection process for various posts with CMRL. Despite fulfilling the essential qualifications and undergoing the selection process, they were not issued appointment orders, leading to the filing of writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were meritoriously selected in the earlier process but were not issued appointment orders due to operational requirements. It also noted the subsequent cancellation of the earlier notification and the issuance of a new advertisement for a lower-paying post. The court considered the petitioners' willingness to accept appointment in the new post and directed CMRL to call for their willingness and consider their claim for appointment, setting aside the cancellation notification and the new advertisement.
Issues: The issues involved included the non-issuance of appointment orders to the petitioners despite their meritorious selection, the cancellation of the earlier notification, and the subsequent advertisement for a lower-paying post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, who were meritoriously selected, should be given the opportunity to opt for appointment to the lower-paying post and directed CMRL to consider their claim for appointment based on their willingness and fulfillment of eligibility criteria.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the cancellation notification and the new advertisement, and directed CMRL to call for the willingness of the petitioners and consider their claim for appointment to the lower-paying post.

ORDER :

The issues involved and points to be adjudicated in these writ petitions are one and the same and therefore, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

W.P.Nos.15196 and 15197 of 2016

2.1. The petitioners in W.P.No.15196 and 15197 of 2016, in the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions would aver among other things that they have completed Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering respectively. The petitioner in W.P.No.15196 of 2016 had stated that when he was about to pursue higher education by joining B.E. (Bachelor of Engineering), he came across a notification issued by the Chennai Metro Rail Limited [in short “CMRL”] in Advertisement No.Advt.No.CMRL/HR/01/2013 inviting applications from Indian Nationals for the following posts with distribution of posts as under:

a. Station Controller/Train Operator/Jr.Engineer (Station)-Post Code -01

b. Jr. Engineer - Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics/Civil (Post Code-2)

c.Technicians-Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics/Civil/Plumbing/Blacksmith/Welding/Information Technology-Post Code - 03.

i. Station Controller - 60

ii. Train Operator - 87

iii. Junior Engineer - (Station) - 97.

2.2. The petitioners herein would aver that 244 posts were called for Post Code 01 and the number of posts available under Code-02 are 210 and the basic qualification prescribed was First Class (60% marks and above) 3 years diploma or equivalent discipline (Mechanical, EEE, ECE and Civil) from a Government recognized institute and the maximum age limit is 28 years and for post Code-03, the minimum qualification is SSLC passed plus Industrial Training Institute-specific trade with minimum 55% marks from Government recognized institute and the age limit is 28 years. The petitioners would claim that since they fulfill the essential and necessary qualifications, they have applied for the same through on-line and they would further aver that as per Clause 3 of the notification dated January 2013, selection methodology for Post Code-01 comprised of four stage process and they are on-line test, psychometric test, proficiency in Tamil followed by medical examination in A-1 category and it further prescribes that the selection process would judge different facets of knowledge (attitude, apprehension, proficiency in Tamil and physical fitness) and only those successful candidates who have successfully completed on-line test, Tamil proficiency test and psychometric test, shall be called for medical examination. The petitioner would claim that in all stages, they have been provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Train Operator, Station Controller and Junior Engineer (Stations) – Post Code-01, subject to verification of identity and eligibility on the basis of original documents of medical fitness and verification of antecedents and other relevant requirements and accordingly, they have participated in the certificate verification and underwent medical tests also and was anxiously awaiting for appointment orders.

2.3. The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that though very many candidates have participated, finally 154 candidates were selected and only 30 candidates were issued with appointment orders during September 2013 and another 30 candidates were issued with appointment orders during June 2014 and subsequently yet another six candidates were randomly selected from the remaining list of candidates and were given appointment orders and the petitioners are yet to be issued appointment orders and therefore, they have come forward with this writ petition.

2.4. Notices were ordered to the respondents and however, no interim orders have been passed.

W.P.Nos.31491, 31492 and 31550 of 2016

3.1. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.31491 and 31492 of 2016 are the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15196 and 15197 of 2016 respectively and W.P.No.31550 of 2016 has been filed by Mr. Syed Sulaiman and 25 others. Since the details as to the participation of the petitioners in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(Mad) 8

The judgment establishes the principle that meritoriously selected candidates should be given the opportunity to opt for appointment to a lower-paying post if they are willing and fulfill the eligibility criteria.

Cases Referred (3)