P.Ravanamma v. The Secretary To Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.06.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 and WMP.No.33940 of 2017 P.Ravanamma

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Secretary to Government, Rep. by its Undersecretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

...Respondent

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on relating to the impugned letter No.608/aa.na.mu.1/2012 dated 31.08.2012 issued by the respondent herein, The Under Secretary, Higher Education Department, to quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to appoint the petitioner as Office Assistant on a monthly salary of Rs.4800-10000/- with grade pay of Rs.1300/-.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan for Mr.T.Sitharthan For Respondent : Ms.Indhu Bala, AGP Page No.1 of 6

ORDER

This Writ petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned letter No.608/aa.na.mu.1/2012 dated 31.08.2012 issued by the respondent cancelling the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Office Assistant and to quash the same.

2. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this Writ petition are as under:- Consequent upon arising of vacancy in six (6) posts of Office Assistants during the year 2011, the respondent requested the District Employment Officer, Nandanam, to sponsor suitable candidates for filling up the six (6) posts of the Office Assistants in Higher Education Department. Pursuant to the same, the District Employment Officer, Nandanam, sponsored 30 candidates through his letter No.AJ/X2/2011GO136, dated 27.12.2011 including the name of the petitioner. The respondent herein, after having conducted interviews on 30.08.2012, selected four (4) candidates including the petitioner herein against the four posts out of the six posts and thereafter realized that all the four candidates including the petitioner herein that were Page No.2 of 6

selected were all belonging to Scheduled Castes community and the roster that is required to be followed was not followed. In the light of the same, the appointment orders that were issued in favour of the petitioner and others on 31.08.2012 were cancelled through the impugned order and accordingly, the District Employment Officer was again addressed to sponsor revised list of fresh candidates for filling up the eight (8) posts of Office Assistant. Accordingly, the District Employment Officer sponsored 40 candidates subsequently and different candidates were selected by following the roster. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.08.2012, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner herein, he approached this Court by filing the present Writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. Though the respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit narrating the facts of the case as noted herein above, the petitioner has not disputed any of the contents of the counter affidavit, especially the contention of the respondent that the roster was not followed while issuing the appointment order Page No.3 of 6

dated 31.08.2012 in favor of the petitioner and for that reason only, the appointment orders issued in favour of the petitioner and others were cancelled.

5. It is also not disputed that subsequent to the impugned order, again, a fresh list was called for from the District Employment Officer and accordingly, the eight (8) posts of Office Assistants in Higher Education Department were filled up by following the roster. Thus, it is evident that the only reason for cancelling the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner by issuing the impugned letter is only for want of not following the roster as required under the relevant rules.

6. In the absence of any dispute about the factual situation, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned letter issued by the respondent. Further, the petitioner was appointed only on 31.08.2012 and the impugned cancellation letter was issued on 31.08.2012, that is immediately. In the light of the above factual background, this Court does not see any prejudice being caused to the petitioner by issuance of the impugned proceedings for want of following Principles of natural justice and this Court is also convinced Page No.4 of 6

that there is no necessity of complying with the principles of natural justice, in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially when there is no dispute on the factual aspects

7. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned letter and accordingly, this Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

30.06.2025 skt Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No To:

The Secretary to Government, Rep. by its Undersecretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

Page No.5 of 6

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

skt and MP.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 and WMP.No.33940 of 2017 30.06.2025 Page No.6 of 6