Procedural irregularities should not deny equal opportunities in public employment, particularly for candidates from Scheduled Castes, emphasizing merit and social justice.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction against the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Gangman on the date when other candidates appointed under the Notification No.1/2019 dated 07.03.2019 had been appointed. The petitioner also seeks that service and monetary benefits must be granted.

2. The petitioner has raised a grievance that those, who had obtained lesser marks in the qualifying examination than the petitioner had been issued with letters of appointment, but the petitioner had been over looked.

3. The Writ Petition came up for hearing 25.04.2025 on which date, the Court had reduced the facts and the rival contentions. It would be prudent to reproduce the same.

“3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner, who had qualified with 11th standard since he had failed 12th standard and belongs to Scheduled Caste community had applied for the post of Gangman, consequent to the notification issued by the respondents to fill about the 15,000 vacancies. The petitioner had obtained 65 marks in the written examination. He also passed the physical test. He was then waiting for the receipt of the appointment letter. But he had not received it. Thereafter, contending that those who had obtained lesser marks than the petitioner had been appointed and seeking the reason as to why the petitioner had been left out, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction to be so appointed as Gangman under the respondents.

4. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it had been stated that the petitioner had applied under PSTM quota. It would require production of the certificate certifying that the petitioner had actually studied in Tamil Medium during his school days. The fact that the petitioner had obtained 65 marks is not denied by the respondents. But however, it is claimed that the petitioner was ranked 8543 among all the candidates. It had been contended that 98 candidates had secured 65 marks. The respondents had a particular method of breaking the tie and the correctness of that particular method cannot be subjected to judicial review at this point of time. But however, if the petitioner had actually been considered as PSTM candidate, then, the petitioner would have a reasonable chance of being issued with the appointment letter. Petitioner had applied under PSTM candidates quota. Two mutually exclusive statements had been put across the Bar and had also been sworn in by the petitioner in the affidavit and the respondents in the counter affidavit. Petitioner claims that at the time of certificate verification, he had produced the relevant certificates to indicate that he had studied in Tamil Medium in his school days. The respondents however deny that such a certificate had not been produced.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the check list had been produced at the time of certificate verification and in that particular check list, in Sl.No.1020, with the Admit Card No.V0437R1020, in column No.9, wherein, a remark is given whether the individual is a person, who studied in Tamil Medium, it had been remarked as Yes.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents however claimed that this is an automatically generated document and it only gives the check list and it does not actually indicate that the certificate was produced by the petitioner to certify that they studied in Tamil Medium.

7. With res