SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ.
M.Arul Keerthy – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Pondicherry - Respondent
W.P.Nos.13108 of 2021, 12729 of 2020, 28389 of 2021 & 1488 of 2022
Decided on : 07-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Ravi
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Syed Mustafa, Special Government Pleader

The recruitment process must ensure equal treatment of all candidates, upholding constitutional principles of fairness and non-discrimination.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Petitioners challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 01.10.2019 regarding recruitment for Deputy Tahsildar, claiming denial of opportunity due to improper implementation of revaluation for all candidates - Tribunal's order deemed unambiguous, rejecting the need for clarification - Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing equal treatment of all candidates in selection processes. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 16)

(B) Recruitment Process - The court reiterated that the recruitment process must be conducted uniformly for all candidates, ensuring no discrimination occurs, as it would violate constitutional equality principles. (Paras 13, 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash the Tribunal's order that directed revaluation of answer sheets for all candidates, arguing it denied them the opportunity for selection. The recruitment notification was issued on 28.06.2010 for 20 vacancies, with the selection process concluded in 2010.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's rejection of the clarification request was upheld, affirming that the revaluation process must apply to all candidates to maintain fairness and constitutional equality.

Issues: The main issues included whether the Tribunal's order was correctly implemented and if all candidates should benefit from the revaluation process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the recruitment process must be fair and inclusive, ensuring all candidates are treated equally, as mandated by constitutional principles.

Result: All Writ Petitions are disposed of.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

Prayer in W.P.No.13108 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for the records of the 24th Respondent relating to its Common order dated 01.10.2019 in OA Nos. 1491/11, 1536/11, 267/12, 368/12, 89/13 and OA 413/2013, quash the same to the limited extent of directions contained in para 20(1) thereof and consequential orders issued by the Third Respondent and to issue consequential directions to the 24th Respondent to clarify its directions in para 20(1) as applicable to the applicants in the relevant O. As alone and the merit list should be prepared and published based on cut off marks fixed in the original select list of 2010-11, paving way of the appointment of the petitioner in any of the existing vacancies with seniority from the date on which the initial appointment was given to respondents 4 to 23 without any backwages.

Prayer in 12729 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in M.A. 55/2020 in O.A.368/2012 (Batch) dated 23.03.2020 on the file of the 23rd Respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the 23rd Respondent to clarify the order in O.A.368/2012 (batch) dated 01.10.2019.

Prayer in W.P.No.28389 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 27th respondent in its common order dated 01.10.2019 in OA Nos. 1491/11 batch and to quash the same to the limited extent of directions contained in para 20 (1) thereof and consequential orders issued by the Special Secretary (Revenue) to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry and consequently clarify or direct the 27th Respondent to clarify its directions in para 20 (1) as applicable to the applicants in the relevant O.As alone and the merit list should be prepared and published based on cut off marks fixed in the original select list of 2010-11, paving way for the appointment of the petitioner in any of the existing vacancies with seniority from the date on which the initial appointment was given to respondents 3 to 26 without any back wages.

Prayer in W.P.No.1488 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 28th Respondent in its common order dated 01.10.2019 in OA. No. 267/12 and to Quash the same to the limited extent of directions contained in Para 20 (1) thereof and consequential orders issued by the Special Secretary (Revenue) to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry and Consequently clarify or direct the 28th Respondent to clarify its directions in para 20 (1) as applicable to the applicants in the relevant O.As alone and the merit list should be prepared and published based on cut off marks fixed in the original select list of 2010- 11, paving way for the appointment of the Petitioner in any of the existing vacancies with seniority from the date on which the initial appointment was given to respondents 4 to 23 without any back wages.

Under assail is the order dated 01.10.2019 and 23.03.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in Miscellaneous Application.No.55 of 2020 in O.A.Nos. 1491/11, 1536/11, 267/12, 368/12, 89/13 and OA 413/2013.

2. The issues relating to the process of selection pertaining to the recruitment notification dated 28.06.2010 for appointment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar were considered by the Tribunal and final order had been passed on 01.10.2019 in batch of Original Applications issuing directions to the respondents.

3. The grievances of the Writ Petitioners before us is that, the order of Central Administrative Tribunal has been implemented in respect of all

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top