M.Chinnaponnu v. State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR M.Chinnaponnu ...
Petitioner Vs 1 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2 The Vice Chancellor, Thiruvalluvar University, Serkadu 632 115.
3 The Thiruvalluvar University, rep. by its Registrar, Serkadu 632 115, Vellore District.
...
Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the selection and interview held on 17.06.2015 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondent 1 : Ms.S.Indhu Bala, Addl. Govt. Pleader.
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Godson Swaminath, for M/s.Isaac Chamber.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the selection and interview held on 17.06.2015 with all consequential monetary and other service benefits.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein participated in the recruitment process in response to Advertisement No.426, dated 26.04.2015, issued by the respondent University, for the post of Assistant Professor, in its various constituent colleges. In the Department of Tamil, 13 posts were notified and, out of 13 posts, 3 posts were earmarked for SC and SC(A). The petitioner was subjected to the process of selection, including interview by the respondents. However, the petitioner was not selected and appointed for the post of Assistant Professor - Tamil by the respondent University. Under those circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court with the present Writ Petition for the relief as mentioned hereinabove.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit, contending that the petitioner has not come up for selection by virtue of the marks secured in the process of selection and three other candidates, namely, Suganthi D, Vijayakumar P, and Uma P were appointed against the posts earmarked for SC category by virtue of the marks secured by them in the interview and the process.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent University also placed relevant material, whereby marks were awarded to all the candidates, including the petitioner and the three above named selected candidates. On perusal of the same, it is noticed that the other three candidates, who were selected and appointed, secured more marks than the petitioner.
5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to contend that the selected candidates were arbitrarily awarded marks in the interview, by depriving the petitioner of the marks in the interview, this Court is not inclined to go into the same, for the simple reason that the three selected candidates have not been impleaded as respondents in the present Writ Petition, nor there is any specific averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, comparing the marks awarded to the petitioner as well as the three selected candidates in the interview. As the three selected candidates have already been appointed in the year 2016 and they are not
impleaded as party respondents in this Writ Petition, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
6. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are closed. 25.08.2025 NCC :
Yes / No Index :
Yes / No Internet :
Yes / No dixit To:
1 State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Fort. St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2 The Vice Chancellor, Thiruvalluvar University, Serkadu 632 115.
3 The Thiruvalluvar University, rep. by its Registrar, Serkadu 632 115, Vellore District.
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
dixit 25.08.2025