R.Ragavendran v. The Chairman And Managing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.09.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM R.Ragavendran ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, No.114, Anna Salai, Chennai.

2.The Superintendent Engineer, Vellore E.B. Circle, TANGEDCO, Vellore District.

... Respondents Common Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 22.09.2016 in accordance with law within stipulated period.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Subramanian for TANGEDCO 1/5

ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 22.09.2016 and pass orders.

2.The petitioner states that he has completed SSLC in the year 2003 and subsequently, passed wire man course in Auxillium Technical Training Centre and obtained National Trade Certificate. The petitioner registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Vellore on 28.03.2006. On the basis of the qualification, the petitioner submitted a representation to provide appointment. In the year 2009, the respondents called for direct selection for the post of Helper and the petitioner submitted his application and his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. A call letter was received by the writ petitioner and he participated in the interview. However, the petitioner was not selected, despite, the fact that he possessed the qualification. An unsuccessful candidate cannot send a representation and file a writ petition seeking a direction to consider the representation.

2/5

3.Appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules. The process of selection can be challenged only if tainted with the allegations of malafides or corrupt practices. Thus, mere representation submitted by the writ petitioner to the respondent would not confer any right to secure appointment by seeking a direction to consider the same. The petitioner participated in the process of selection and was unsuccessful. Therefore, any further representation with regarding the selection cannot be considered by the competent authority. Perusal of the representation reveals that the petitioner participated in the process of selection and not selected. That being the factum, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present writ petition.

4.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. 22.09.2022 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order ssr 3/5

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

ssr To 1.The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, No.114, Anna Salai, Chennai.

2.The Superintendent Engineer, Vellore E.B. Circle, TANGEDCO, Vellore District.

22.09.2022 4/5

5/5