P.Kayalvizhi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Director,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM P.Kayalvizhi
...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu represented by 1.The Director, Personnel and Administration (R & A) Department, No.1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Senior Administrative Officer, P & A (R & A) Department, CMWSS Board, Chennai - 600 002.
..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to disclose the intercaste marriage priority list for selecting the applicants/ candidates for the post of the Junior Assistant for MBC and DC(NA) category and priority wise.
1/6
For Petitioner : Ms.K.Akshaya For Dr.S.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.Krishna Ravindran
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the 1st respondent to disclose the intercaste marriage priority list for selecting the applicants/ candidates for the post of the Junior Assistant for MBC and DC(NA) category and priority wise.
2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant.
3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that she is eligible to get priority under the intercaste marriage quota and the said benefit was not granted to her and the respondents have not published the entire results, resulted that the petitioner was not in a position to know about her status.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the respondents have not published the results in a transparent manner and the 2/6
status of the intercaste married candidates were not published.
5. In this regard, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the priority for intercaste marriage was provided and accordingly, one Smt.V.Suganya was selected and appointed. The petitioner scored lesser marks of 59.125 and therefore, she was not selected. The selected candidate scored 63.543 and thus, the claim of the writ petitioner is not based on any records.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents made a submission that the results were published to the candidates, who participated in the process of selection. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire results are to be published, so as to maintain transparency in the matter of selection and appointment.
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the established procedures for the purpose of selection and appointment is to be scrupulously followed by all the institutions at the time of undertaking the process of 3/6
selection. The results are to be published so as to understand, on what ground, a candidate was not selected or otherwise. Thus, transparency in the process of selection is to be followed and the said transparency is a constitutional mandate.
8. Thus, the respondents, whenever undertook the process, has to follow the procedures as contemplated and to maintain transparency in all other stages, enabling the candidates to understand their status regarding participation.
9. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
04.11.2022 Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes kak To 1.The Director, Personnel and Administration (R & A) Department, No.1, Pumping Station Road, 4/6
Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002.
2.The Senior Administrative Officer, P & A (R & A) Department, CMWSS Board, Chennai - 600 002.
5/6
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak 04.11.2022 6/6