BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
G. Ramesh & Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No. 7798 of 2009
Decided On : 04-01-2021
Seniority - Appointment Dispute - Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 - [Article 226] - [Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005] - [Summary: The court addressed a dispute regarding the appointment of Technical Assistants under the NREGS scheme. The petitioners, who claimed seniority, challenged the selection of junior private respondents. The court found that seniority alone does not confer the right to appointment and that the petitioners failed to satisfy all the requirements under the scheme. The court dismissed the writ petition.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming seniority, challenged the selection of junior private respondents for the appointment of Technical Assistants under the NREGS scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that seniority alone does not confer the right to appointment and that the petitioners failed to satisfy all the requirements under the scheme.
Issues: Dispute over appointment under the NREGS scheme, claim of seniority by the petitioners, failure to satisfy scheme requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: Seniority alone does not confer the right to appointment; all scheme requirements must be satisfied for appointment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records connected with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in respect of the appointment of respondents 5 to 7 in G.O.Ms.No.96, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department, dated 06.06.2008 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the third respondent to sponsor the name of the first petitioner in accordance with his seniority and direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioners as Technical Assistant in the place of respondents 5 to 7 and consequently, to direct the first respondent to absorb the petitioners as overseers in the place of respondents 5 to 7.)
1. It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner is belonging to Backward Class Community and the petitioners 2 and 3 are belonging to Scheduled Caste Community. The petitioners have passed Diploma in Civil Engineering and have registered their names in the District Employment Exchange, Trichy and consequent to the trifurcation of Trichy District into Karur and Perambalur Districts in the year 1996, their employment exchange cards have been transferred to Karur District and they have registered their names from the year 1992 to 1996.
2. Whileso, the Government of India has launched National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “the NREGS”), under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, in the year 2006 in six districts of Tamilnadu under Phase I, viz., Thiruvannamalai, Cuddalore, Villupuram, Nagapattinam, Dindigul and Sivaganga. Further the NREGS scheme was extended to four more districts in Phase II with effect from 01.04.2007, viz., Thanjavur, Tiruvarur, Karur and Tirunelveli. In Phase III, with effect from 01.04.2008, the NREGS Scheme was further extended to the remaining 20 districts of the State. In this regard, the Government of Tamilnadu created large number of technical posts in the cadres of Assistant Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and Overseers with the view to strengthening the implementation of NREGS Scheme and makes its benefits truly reach the rural poor with regard to the timely disbursement of wages.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that though the petitioners are fully qualified, their names have not been sponsored to the post of Technical Assistant, despite their seniority. However, the names of private respondents, who are the junior most to the petitioners, have been sponsored by the third respondent to the post of Technical Assistant and they have also selected to the said post. Challenging the selection of private respondents to the post of Technical Assistant, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Heard Mr.V.Balaji, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the third respondent has not sponsored the first petitioner's name to the post of Technical Assistant. He would also submit that even though the third respondent has forwarded the names of the second and third petitioners, the first respondent has not selected the second and third petitioners and has selected the private respondents, who are junior most to the petitioners, which is totally contrary to the NREGS scheme and accordingly, he prays for allowing this Writ Petition.
6. Per contra, Mr.D.Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader, would submit that the second respondent, vide his letter, dated 24.07.2007, has requested the third respondent to sponsor the candidates to fill up 16 posts of Technical Assistant in Karur District. The third respondent, vide his letter, dated 30.07.2007 has sponsored the names of 2nd and 3rd petitioners under Open Community (Non priority). He would also submit that the petitioners 2 and 3 have attended the certificate verification and have not attended the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.