T.Murugan v. Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :27.11.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.21373 of 2010 T.Murugan
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St. George Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.Director General of Police Chennai - 600 004.
3.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
...Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to award two more marks to the petitioner (Reg.No.2900350) for question Numbers 11 and 44 of the Written Test for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 and consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 and place him in the appropriate place in the list of selected candidates with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Velmurugan For M/s.Bala and Daisy For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkataramani Addl. Advocate General - VII Assisted by Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari Government Advocate ........
O R D E R
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to award two more marks to the petitioner (Reg.No.2900350) for question Numbers 11 and 44 of the Written Test for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 and consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 and place him in the appropriate place in the list of selected candidates with all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2.First of all, this Court is of the opinion that appointment can never be claimed as a matter of right. Even a selection will not confer any right on the candidates to seek an order of appointment. A writ against the process of selection may be entertained only, if any illegality irregularity malpractices or corrupt activities are substantiated then the Court can interfere. A mere participation in the process of selection will not confer any right on the candidates to seek an order of appointment.
3.In the case on hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that some of the questions and answers are vague and it was not properly evaluated. Thus, the writ petitioners are entitled for additional marks in this regard. In the event of providing additional marks, there is a probability of selection of the writ petitioner, on this ground the writ petition is filed.
4.However, this Court cannot issue any direction to an order of appointment. The writ petitioner has to succeed in the process of selection and then only, the order of appointment will follow.
5.In view of the fact that the reasons stated in the writ petition are not very clear. This Court is of the opinion that it is suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the representation, if any and pass orders so as to know the reasons for which the petitioner was not selected for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector.
6.The writ petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation to the third respondent/Board within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such representation is received the third respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in
accordance with law, within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter.
7.With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar maya To 1.Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St. George Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.Director General of Police Chennai - 600 004.
3.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
+1cc to M/s.Bala & Daisy, Advocate, S.R.No.84479 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.84744 W.P. No.21373 of 2010 RRK(15/12/2017)