IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
U.Yasin – Appellant
Versus
1.The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.1444 of 2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the fourth respondent's qualification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. higher qualifications do not disqualify applicants. (Para 4) |
| 3. court distinguishes case law from the current context. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A5/10066/2022, dated 14.01.2023 issued by the third respondent in so far as appointing the fourth respondent as Village Assistant in Serial No.7 is concerned and to quash the same while seeking consequential direction to the third respondent to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant at Kakkannenthal Revenue Village in terms of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Village Assistants Service Rules.
2. The petitioner herein and the fourth respondent have participated in the recruitment process for the post of Village Assistant of Kakkanenthal Revenue Village, undertaken by the third respondent. In the said recruitment process was undertaken in terms of G.O.Ms.No.574, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing, [Ser8(1)] Section dated 17.10.2020. Pursuant to the said recruitment process, the fourth respondent was selected and appointed as Village Assistant of Kakkanenthal Revenue Village. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that the fourth respondent was preferred over him as he possessed a graduation degree qualification as against the qualification of pass in 5th standard prescribed under the recruitment notification for the post of Village Assistant.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the candidates who possessed higher qualification than the minimum qualification that was prescribed for the post should not have been allowed to participate in the recruitment process on the primise that in such event the competition would be among in unequal, thereby, offending the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In precisely, it is the ground on which, the writ petition has been filed.
4. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner herein is a candidate having passed in 7th standard and participated in the recruitment process for the post, for which, minimum educational qualification prescribed was a pass in 5th standard. If the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, he himself would stand disqualified from the recruitment process on the ground of possessing a qualification higher than the minimum prescribed. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, such a ground is not available to the petitioner. This is also for the simple reason that there is no restriction either in the notification issued for the purpose of filling up the post of Village Assistant or in the relevant Rules governing the post that prohibits candidates possessing higher educational qualifications from participating in the recruitment process. Admittedly, under Rule 6 as well as the notification in question, only the minimum educational qualification has been prescribed. Hence, it can't be said that the candidates, who possessed the higher qualification, cannot participate in the recruitment process. 5. Be that as it may, in response to the notice issued, the respondents filed a detailed counter stating that the entire recruitment process for filling up the post of Village Assistant has been undertaken in terms of the guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms.No.574 (Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Services Wing, [Ser8(1)] Section) dated 17.10.2020 and marks were awarded to the candidates strictly in terms of the said Government Order. It was further stated that the petitioner herein secured 63.40 marks in total and since the fourth respondent secured higher marks, the fourth respondent was rightly selected over the petitioner. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:-
“3. It is submitted that the Government of TamilNadu on
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.