The court emphasized the importance of following the approved selection process and the absence of material to invalidate the appointments.

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 3rd and 2nd respondents connected with the impugned circular No.A2/4978/2006-T dated 04.11.2008 as Assistant Traffic Managers respectively and quash the same and to consider the petitioners for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager as per the extant Chennai Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations 2008.)

1. The Petitioners/employee of Port Trust, being aggrieved by the selection of respondents 4 to 7 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 11.08.2008 whereby, the Traffic Manager, Chennai Port Trust/3rd respondent, published a circular inviting the eligible employees in the Trust for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager.

2. Questioning the said impugned circular and the 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. It is also contended that impugned circular does not specify the qualification and experience which is mandatory for recruitment under Regulation 5-A.

3. The petitioners would submit that they are eligible to considered for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager and they are having the requisite qualification and experience. They submitted that they are working as Section Superintendents which is the feeder post for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager.

4. The 3rd 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.

5. 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 4 to 7 suffer from serious infirmities.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in the selection process, awarding marks for experience to the respondents 4 to 7 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. The petitioners questioned the invoking of Regulation 25(1) for appointing respondents 4 to 7. It is submitted that the petitioners who are in the supervisory category ought to have been considered for the promotion as against respondents 4 to 7.

7. 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.

8. 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 examinat