Madras High CourtWP/8309/2023dismissed

T.Sivan v. The Revenue Secretary

2023-06-09Honourable Mr Justice M.S. Ramesh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH and W.M.P.Nos.8511, 8512 & 8515 of 2023 T. Sivan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District - 606 604.

4.The Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai. Pin - 606 601.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai. Pin - 606 601.

6.The District Employment Officer, Thiruvannamalai. Pin - 606 604.

7.Tmt. Thakira 8.Thiru.S. Sathis ... Respondents 1/4

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 6th respondent in letter No.Na.Ka.No.A15654 dated 23.12.2022 and the 4th respondent's proceeding No.Na.Ka.No.A3/4934/2022, dated 01.02.2023 and quash the same consequently direct the 4th respondent to call for the name of the petitioner from the 6th respondent and direct the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Village Assistant in Melnachipattu Village, Alathur Village or any vacant place in Mashar Village in Chengam Taluk. For Petitioner : Mr.A. Sivaji For Respondents : Mr.P. Gurunathan, Additional Government Pleader [R1 to R6] No Appearance [R7 & R8]

ORDER

The petitioner herein is aggrieved against the non-selection of his candidature for the post of Village Assistant.

2. When one vacancy was notified for the post of Village Assistant in Melnachipattu Village, the same was under General GT priority Inter Caste Married couple as per roster point. The petitioner, as well as the respondents 7 & 8, had applied for the said post. 2/4

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent herein, the details of the marks secured by the petitioner, as well as the respondents 7 & 8, have been stated. While the petitioner had obtained 46 marks, the respondents 7 & 8 have secured 70 & 82 marks respectively. On this basis, the petitioner's candidature was rejected.

4. The claim of the petitioner that he is differently abled and therefore, he is entitled for being considered, also does not hold good since the selection process itself is one for General GT category. Since the petitioner was unsuccessful in the selection process, I do not find any infirmity on the action taken by the respondents, in not including his name in the selection process.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09.06.2023 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Sni 3/4

M.S.RAMESH,J.

Sni To 1.The Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.