IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22/02/2005
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN
WRIT PETITION NO.34347 of 2002
R. Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Director of
Employment & Training
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
2. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
City Civil Court Campus
High Court Buildings
Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr.K. Raja for
Mrs.Muthumani Doraisamy
For respondent-1 : Mr.E. Sampath Kumar, G.A.
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal dated 28.11.2001 made in O.A.No.510 of 2001 in and by
which the tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner
herein. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the above writ
petition alone are stated hereunder:-
According to the petitioner, he belongs to the Backward Class
community and he completed SSLC in the year 1982 and also passed Higher
Secondary Course. He passed the course of Machinist in the Government
Industrial Training Institute, Erode and to that effect, Nationalised Trade
Certificate was issued in the year 1986. He also completed the Vocational
Training held in October 1987 and to that effect, National Apprenticeship
Certificate was issued in the year 1987. Immediately, he enrolled his name in
the Employment Exchange, Erode in the year 1986. He gained experience as
Machinist in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in Kongu Engineering
College, Perundurai from 7.8.1 989 and thus, became qualified to be appointed
as Junior Training Officer (Machinist). Since he was having the requisite
qualification, he was provisionally selected for the post of Junior Training
Officer (Machinist). After his selection, the first respondent directed him
to produce all the documents on 5.1.2001, which were produced for verification
before the Committee on 5.1.2001. The first respondent, instead of issuing
the formal order confirming the earlier selection, on extraneous
consideration, had taken steps to appoint another person since his date of
birth was 15.2.1966 and he had completed the age of 35 years on 14.02 .2001.
According to the petitioner, this was in view of the fact that the petitioner
was getting age-barred very soon, though his name was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange and he was provisionally selected. But, apart from the
petitioner, the other persons were of lesser age having lesser experience and
they were having more opportunities, whereas for the petitioner, this was the
last chance. The action of the first respondent is contrary to the Government
Order in G.O. Ms. No.191, Rural Development Department dated 7.9.1998 and
having no other remedy, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.
No.510 of 2001. The Tribunal, without considering his claim with reference to
the above referred Government Order, has erroneously rejected his application.
Hence the present writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned government advocate for the first respondent.
3. After taking us through the various selection process, the
Government Orders and the order of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the second respondent has committed an error in
not considering the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O. Ms. No.191,
Rural Development Department dated 7.9.1998. He further contended that the
petitioner herein neither
suppressed any material fact nor misled the authorities. Inasmuch as the
District Employment Officer, Erode did not say that the petitioner committed a
mistake, while sponsoring his name, the order of the first respondent
cancelling his initial appointment cannot be sustained, but the same was not
considered by the second respondent.
4. On the other hand, the learned government advocate
appearing for the first respondent would submit that in the light of the fact
that as per the registration, the petitioner is junior to others, who
registered prior to his registration, and the first respondent is fully
justified in cancelling his appointment and the same was rightly considered
and rejected by the Tribunal.
5. We have considered the relevant materials and the rival
contentions.
6. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is
whether the first respondent is justified in cancelling the initial
appointment of the petitioner and whether the order of the second respondent
Tribunal dismissing his original application is sustainable in law.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has passed the
course of Machinist in the Government Industrial Training Institute at Erode
and he was awarded with Nationalised Trade Certificate in 1986. Subsequently,
he completed the Vocational Training held in October 1987 and awarded with
National Apprenticeship Certificate in the year 1987 . It is his claim that
he gained more than 11 years experience as Machinist in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering in Kongu Engineering College, Perundurai from 7.8.1989.
He registered his name with the Employment Exchange, Erode in the year 1986
with the Nationalised Trade Certificate. It is further seen that the
petitioner was provisionally selected by the first respondent and was directed
to produce all original documents on 5.1.2001. Accordingly, he appeared and
produced all the certificates on 5.1.2001. However, he has not been favoured
with the posting order as he would be completing 35 years of age as on
14.2.2001, though his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and
provisionally selected. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first
respondent has committed an error in not considering G.O. Ms. No.191 dated
7.9.1998.
8. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that placing
reliance on the information furnished by the first respondent in the form of a
reply affidavit, after holding that the registration of the petitioner in the
Office of the Employment Exchange is subsequent to other qualified persons,
the Tribunal dismissed his application and rejected his claim.
9. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to G.O. Ms. No.191
Rural Development Department dated 7.9.1998. Among the other clauses, Clause
3 is relevant, which reads as under :-
(Vernacular portion deleted)
It is relevant to note that as per the assertion made by the petitioner, he
was about to complete the age of 35 years as on 14.2.2001. In such
circumstances, as per the above referred Government Order, the petitioner is
entitled to be given preference for appointment to the post of Junior Training
Officer (Machinist). Though he was provisionally selected, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent committed
an error in not confirming the provisional order without considering the
government order referred to above, particularly taking note of the fact that
after completion of the age of 35 years, he cannot compete for the said post.
We are satisfied that both the first respondent as well as the second
respondent Tribunal failed to comply with G.O. Ms. No.191 Rural Development
Department dated 7.9.1998. On this ground, the order of the second respondent
made in O.A. No.510 of 2001 dated 28.11.2001 has to be quashed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice
that even at the time of ordering Rule Nisi in the writ petition on 5.9.2002,
in W.P.M.P. No.51286 of 2002, this Court directed the government to keep one
post vacant. In the light of the said direction, we are satisfied that the
petitioner is entitled to the consequential relief of a mandamus.
11. Accordingly, while quashing the order of the second respondent
dated 28.11.2001 made in O.A.No.510 of 2001, a direction is issued to the
first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner herein as Junior
Training Officer (Machinist) in any one of the available vacancies at Erode,
pursuant to the order of selection made in RC.TP2/65 230/2000 dated
23.12.2000, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
12. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
No costs.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
gs
To
1. The Director of
Employment & Training
Chepauk
Chennai 600 005.
2. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
City Civil Court Campus
High Court Buildings
Chennai 600 104.