Kjayasri v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and W.M.P.Nos. 4932, 4933 &15237 of 2021 K.Jayasri
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
1/8
4.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai 5.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, praying to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.Tha2/0950/2020 dated 26.05.2020 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to conduct selection with proper Notification by prescribing qualification in accordance with service rules by not disqualifying 10th standard pass candidates including the petitioner to participate in the selection to the post of Cook in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department in Thiruvannamalai District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate 2/8
ORDER
The 4th respondent herein issued the Notification published in the newspapers, vide No.Na.Ka.K1/32009/2020 dated 19.01.2021 calling for applications to the post of 42 Cooks (24 Social Welfare Department) and 18 Tribunal Welfare Department in Thiruvannamalai District. In response to the said Notification the petitioner submitted an application and accordingly the petitioner was called for interview by issuing the notice dated 19.01.2021 and accordingly, the petitioner appeared for interview on 02.02.2021 before the 4th respondent. However, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered by the 4th respondent on the ground that the petitioner has passed 10th standard. The qualifications that are described in terms of the guidelines issued in proceedings e/f/ vz;/j2-0950-2020 dated 26.05.
2020, it is only the candidates who failed in 10th standard are eligible to make an application pursuant to the notification in question. Therefore, the 4th respondent has not selected the petitioner and not considered the case of the petitioner on the ground that he has passed 10th standard/over qualified. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, challenging the qualification prescribed in proceedings e/f/ vz;/j2-09502020 dated 26.05.2020.
2. This Court, while entering the writ petition, passed an interim order permitting the selection process to go on pursuant to the notification and subjecting the said selection process to the result of the writ petition, by an interim order dated 26.02.2021.
3.As seen from the counter affidavit, the selection process was completed and all the 42 posts notified were filled up. The issue as to whether the candidate who is over qualification, can be disqualified, while filling up the post of Cook has, come up for consideration before a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD).No.1562 of 2023 etc., batch and in the said decision, it was held that disqualifying the candidates on the ground of over qualification is not valid. The relevant paragraph from the order of the Division Bench reads as under:
''30.1. In respect of the writ appeals on hand, violations are committed by selecting the overaged candidates with reference to the Special Rules and recruitment notification. The appointed candidates are to be segregated into two categories viz., overqualified candidates and over aged candidates. Regarding 4/8
appointment of overqualified candidates, their selection and appointment to the post of Cook cannot be termed as illegal, since there is no prescription of maximum educational qualification either in the Special Rules or in the recruitment notification. Thus, the appointment of overqualified candidates in the post of Cook is held to be valid ''.
4.In the light of the above decision, the action of the 4th respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for filling up the post of Cook pursuant to the notification dated 19.01.2021 on the ground of passing 10th/SSLC examination is bound to be declared as illegal and invalid. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his case on par with other similarly situated candidates without reference to the so called over qualification of the petitioner. As the selection process is permitted to be completed, subject to the result of the writ petition, it is obligatory that the said appointments made for filling up the 42 post of Cook cannot be said to be final, as they are made subject to the result of this writ petition. 5.In view of the above, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent to review the selection process that was already completed, by duly 5/8
considering the case of the petitioner on par with the other similarly situated candidates.
6.In the light of the above, the 4th respondent is directed to review the selection already concluded, pursuant to the Notification dated 19.01.2021 by duly considering the case of the petitioner and for being appointed to the post of Cook in response to the said notification or in the alternative to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Cook in any of the existing vacancy, subject to the petitioner satisfying all other qualification criteria, and coming up within the zone of consideration. In case if the petitioner is found entitled for appointment he shall be extended all the service benefits in terms of his merit except back wages. 7.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 19.06.2024 [2/2] vsn 6/8
Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
3.The Director, Tribal Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
4.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai 5.The District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, 7/8
Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
vsn and W.M.P.Nos. 4932, 4933 &15237 of 2021 19.06.2024 [2/2] 8/8