Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
S.Jayabharathi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.15316 of 2016 And W.M.P.(MD).Nos.11290 & 11291 of 2016
Decided On : 10-06-2024
Writ Petition - Recruitment Process - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection list for Senior Bailiff positions, emphasizing that the recruitment process was completed and appointments made. The court noted that the petitioner could challenge individual appointment orders if they violated legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the selection list for Senior Bailiff positions published by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, which omitted a roster point for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars) candidates.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recruitment process had been completed and selected candidates were already appointed and serving, rendering the writ petition moot. The court allowed the petitioner the option to challenge any appointment orders if they were issued unlawfully.
Issues: Whether the selection list for Senior Bailiff positions could be challenged after the recruitment process was completed and appointments made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the recruitment process is concluded and appointments are made, challenges to the selection list are no longer valid, but individuals may still contest specific appointment orders if they breach legal requirements.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge any appointment orders if necessary.
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Selection List dated 27.02.2016 published by the 2nd respondent Principal District Judge, Dindigul in their official web-site for recruitment to the posts of Senior Bailiff, quash the same in so far as it omits the Roster Point 2 intended for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars) – W/DW – Priority, and further direct the 2nd respondent Principal District Judge to consider the Petitioner for appointment to the said post against the said Roster Point 2 intended for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars) – W/DW – Priority in the said post.
The writ petition has been instituted challenging Selection List dated 27.02.2016 published by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul in their official web-site for recruitment to the posts of Senior Bailiff and to direct the Principal District Judge to consider the petitioner for appointment to the said post against the said Roster Point 2 intended for Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars) – W/DW – Priority in the said post.
2. Admittedly, the recruitment process had been completed and selected candidates were appointed and serving. Therefore, the writ petition deserves no further adjudication, since the challenge made is the recruitment notification. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the appointment orders, if it had been issued in violation of law.
3. With this liberty, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
The completion of a recruitment process and subsequent appointments preclude challenges to the selection list, but individuals retain the right to contest specific appointments that may violate legal....
A completed recruitment process cannot be challenged unless there are legal violations in the appointment orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining the rank list and seniority for selected candidates, as governed by Regulation 97 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board....
The recruitment process must ensure equal treatment of all candidates, upholding constitutional principles of fairness and non-discrimination.
The absence of a legal provision for revaluation of answer sheets in recruitment processes limits the court's ability to intervene in evaluation disputes.
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
