The court upheld the validity of the selection process for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager and found that the appointment of the selected candidates did not require any interference.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a certiorarified mandamus calling for the for records of respondents particularly that of 2nd respondent vide No.B6/0034/2010-T dated 01.03.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct fresh selection of Assistant Traffic Managers in a transparent manner.)

1. The Petitioners/employee of Port Trust, being aggrieved by the selection of respondents 3 to 6 to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager based on marks scored in written examination and their experience in the department to which they belonged, filed this writ petition praying to quash the letter dated 01.03.2010 of the Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust addressed to one E.Manikandan, who sought for information under RTI Act, 2005.

2. Questioning the said selection, the petitioners pleaded malpractice in the conduct of the examination and a scheme devised to prefer the employees selected by giving them additional marks without any logic.

3. The petitioners are working in Chennai Port Trust. The 2nd Respondent –Traffic Manager, Traffic Department issued Circular vide A2/4978/2006/T dated 11.08.2008 notifying filling up to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager, by direct recruitment on redeployment basis under Regulation 5A of the Madras Port Trust Employees (Appointment, Promotion etc) Amendment Regulation 2004. They applied for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager, which is a redeployment post.

4. The notified vacancies were 4 in number. Petitioners forwarded their applications and the applications were scrutinized and were called upon to appear for the written examination. According to the petitioners, the method adopted by the 1st and 2nd respondent in conducting the examination and selecting the respondents 3 to 6 suffer from serious infirmities.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the selection process, awarding marks for experience to the respondents 3 to 6 viz., V.Shanthi, B.Muralidharan, B.Anbuchezhiyan and Gunasekaran is unlawful and the very selection process is total jeopardy of the 1st and 2nd respondents and estopped in law from adopting such process.

6. Official respondents-Port trust filed counter affidavit stating that totally 131 candidates appeared for the examination and the National Maritime Academy had declared the results on 30.10.2008 and 37 candidates who had scored 50% and above were called for interview on 3.11.2008. 36 candidates attended the interview and the interview committee selected 4 candidates for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager viz., (1) V.Shanti, (2) B.Anbuchezian, (3) B.Muralidharan and (4) S.Gunasekaran.

7. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Port Trust, submits that selection list was approved by the Chairman. The Ministry vide Gazette Notification dated 04.08.2000 approved the manner of appointment to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager. The respondent-Port trust, on redeployment basis under Regulation 5-A of the MPT Employees Amendment Regulations 2004, conducted the competitive written examination and the said examination was postponed on 21.08.2008 due to one day General strike by the Trade Union. In the mean time, respondent received an order passed by this court in writ petition No.20149 of 2008, filed by the Chennai Port Employees'' Progressive Union against Chennai Port Trust challenging Regulation 5 A of the Madras Port Trust Employees'' (appointment, promotion) Amendment Regulation 2004. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed as follows:-

“ the proposed examination to be held on 20.08.2008 shall go on. However, the results shall not be published until further orders.''

8. In view of the above order passed by this court, the appointment could not be made until further orders passed in the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondent-Port Trust filed vacate stay petition. In the said peti