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
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
Rishal and Others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others
The recruitment process must ensure equal treatment of all candidates, upholding constitutional principles of fairness and non-discrimination.
Uniformity in recruitment processes is mandated; all candidates must be treated equally in rectifications to avoid discrimination, as per principles of administrative law.
Important points:Lower level appointments, like Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), Postman, etc. where the irregularities in the selection process cannot in any manner be attributed to the applicant, then so....
The absence of a legal provision for revaluation of answer sheets in recruitment processes limits the court's ability to intervene in evaluation disputes.
Parity – When there is a declaration of law by court, Judgment can be treated as Judgment in rem and require equities to be balanced by treating those similarly situated, similarly.
Participation in selection process with knowledge of criteria estops candidates from challenging it after failure.
Innocent appointees should not suffer due to errors in the recruitment process, and their termination after successful appointments, without any fault on their part, would cause undue hardship and ru....
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.