R.Anbumani, v. The Chairman,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.10.2018 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM W.P.No.4274 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 R.Anbumani
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2.The Director, The Central Employment Exchange, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3. The District Employment Officer, Dharmapuri.
... Respondents Prayer:
Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner having Employment Registration No.1239/1998, as a Computer Instructor for the year 2010-2011.
For Petitioner : M/s.P.Valliappan For Respondents : Mr.P.Raja, G.A., for R1 Mr.K.S.Suresh, G.A., for RR2 & 3
O R D E R
The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint him as a Computer Instructor for the year 2010-11.
2. The petitioner would state that he belongs to backward class community and completed B.Sc. (Computer Science) from Bharathidasan University, Trichy in the year 1989. Thereafter, he joined in the office of the Transport Corporation as Junior Assistant on 14.03.1991. After obtaining no objection certificate from his employer, he registered his name with the third respondent on 17.04.1998.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent proposed to appoint 175 Computer Instructors and he is eligible to be appointed as Computer Instructor. However, his name was not included in the list published by the second respondent. Hence, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3890 of 2011, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, but later, he found that his name was included in the additional list and withdrew the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has possessed requisite qualification, he was not selected by the respondents and the list published without considering the claim of the petitioner is non est in the eye of law.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, on instructions, submitted that the Teachers Recruitment Board had verified certificates of 835 candidates and published the results on 26.02.2010 and the candidates included in additional list were returned back as it was not possible to process the list any further.
6. In the case on hand, as per the instructions of the learned Government Advocate, the selection process was completed and the results were published on 26.02.2010 and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-selection, he should have challenged the result published on 26.02.2010, but he has filed this Writ Petition, seeking direction to appoint him as a Computer Instructor. Hence, I find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. However, in future, if vacancy arises, the petitioner's case can be considered in accordance with law. 7.With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is closed Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar pvs To 1.The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2.The Director, The Central Employment Exchange, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3.The District Employment Officer, Dharmapuri.
+1cc to Mr.P.Valliappan, Advocate, S.R.No.69601 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.70136 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.70125 W.P.No.4274 of 2011 KS(CO) rrs 16/11/2018