Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J
A.Thalavai Muthu – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's previous order (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner's claim for compensation (Para 5) |
| 3. court's finding on negligence (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. writ petition outcome (Para 13) |
ORDER :
2. The service matrix of the petitioner is as follows -
2(b) The petitioner's registration has not been completely deleted from the live register of the office of the third respondent. Due to his appointment in the office of the District Programme Co-ordinator, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Tirunelveli, his registration details have been classified as “placed”. However, the petitioner's original seniority dated 28.01.1993 was restored on 11.10.2007 itself when the petitioner produced all the records connected with his appointment in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Tirunelveli.
2(d) Writ Petition No.24914 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner before this Court and the same was disposed on 31.01.2011, with a direction to the 3rd respondent namely Professional and Executive Employment Office, Chennai to sponsor the name of petitioner, if otherwise eligible, by taking into consideration his seniority from 28.01.1993. As per this court order, the petitioner was informed by the 3rd respondent's letter N
The court ruled that employment exchanges are not liable for negligence in registration errors and that candidates must act promptly to rectify issues.
The court upheld the appointment of Respondent No.5, attributing the petitioner's exclusion to his failure to timely update registration details, emphasizing shared responsibility.
The cancellation of the appointment was justified due to the tainted selection process and the violation of recruitment rules. Equal opportunity in public employment is a constitutional mandate.
Employer-verified work experience certificates are valid and cannot be disregarded based on unverifiable end-user data, ensuring fair employment practices.
Negligence by public authorities in processing appointments can lead to candidates being unjustly denied opportunities, warranting judicial intervention to ensure fair treatment.
The appointing authority should provide legally acceptable justifiable reasons for non-appointment of candidates in the waiting list, and the inaction in filling up vacant posts without justifiable r....
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
