R.Jagannathan v. Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.10.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and W.M.P.No. 2808 of 2019 R. Jagannathan ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Director, and Training, Guindy, Chennai - 600032.

2. Joint Director (Craftsman and Training) and Tranining, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

3. Nanjappan K.

4. Balasubramanian M.

5. Vayalimuthu T.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records relating to the provisional list for selection and appointment in respect of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 as Junior Training Officers on the basis of the selection list date 22.12.2018 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Junior Training Officer with all consequential monetary and service benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr. R. Raghavendran For Respondents : Mr. R. Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. S. John J. Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 No appearance R3 to R5

O R D E R

The provisional list for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Training Officer in the department of employment and training is to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner participates in the process of appointment for appointment to the junior training officer in the Government Industrial Training Institutes, across the State of Tamil Nadu.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 3 to 5 who were not within the zone of consideration and whose names were not found in the provisional list were selected and appointed in violation of Rules in force. Therefore, the provisional selection list itself is to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner belong to SC General Non priority category. He studied ITI Course at Cuddalore. He is fully qualified for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Training Officer. The petitioner scored 78.4 marks in total. However, on account of certain irregularities in considering the names of other three persons namely Suresh, Balamurugan P and Anbazhahan A, the petitioner lost his opportunity for selection and appointment.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the candidates mainly Suresh, Balamurugan P and Anbazhahan A, were not appointed since they have secured lesser marks than that of the cut of marks. The said candidates were called for the second round of practical skill cum teaching ability test followed by personal interview held on 17.12.2018. Since those candidates have not secured within the zone of consideration, they were not selected and appointed. Thus, the statement of the writ petitioner is incorrect.

6. Beyond that, the counter filed by the respondents reveals that the cut of marks for schedule caste is 80.4. Since the petitioner secured 78.4, he was

not within the zone of consideration. In respect of the same selection, this Court has considered the procedure followed and the writ petition filed challenging the validity of the procedure was dismissed on 30.08.2022 in W.P.No. 7672 of 2016.

7. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration, the relief as sought for in the present writ petition deserves no merit consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.10.2022 mrn Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-Speaking order To

1. Director, and Training, Guindy,

Chennai - 600032.

2. Joint Director (Craftsman and Training) and Tranining, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

mrn

and W.M.P.No. 2808 of 2019 20.10.2022