C.Sivakumar v. The Director Of Sericulture
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.Nos.6989 and 6990 of 2016 and WMP.Nos.6205 and 6206 of 2016 C.Sivakumar .. Petitioner in WP.No.6989 of 2016 V. Pandi ..
Petitioner in WP.No.6990 of 2016 Vs
1. The Director of Sericulture Nethaji Nagar, Hasthampatti Salem - 636 007.
2. The Assistant Director of Sericulture Folks Compound, Anaimedu, Salem - 636 001 ..Respondents in both WPs Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct interview to the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture and to consider the name of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture based on the marks secured in the written test and interview.
For petitioner in both WPs :
Mr.M.Saravanakumar For respondent :
Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi in both WPs Special Government Pleader for RR 1& 2
O R D E R
These writ petitions have been filed by C.Sivakumar and V.Pandi seeking for a direction to the respondents to conduct interview to them for appointment to the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture and to consider their name for appointment to the post of Junior Inspector of Sericulture based on the marks secured in the written test and interview.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that pursuant to the notification dated 13.1.2016 issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Inspector and Junior Inspector of Sericulture, the petitioners applied to the post of Junior Inspector and their applications were accepted and they have also taken part in the written examination, which was held on 07.02.2016. But the respondents, without declaring the results of the written examination, issued call letters dated 12.02.2016 to the petitioners directing them to appear for interview, which was scheduled to be held on 18.02.2016. Unfortunately, the letters were delivered to the petitioners only on 18.2.2016 at 3.00 p.m and by that time, the interview was over.
Adding further, learned counsel would submit that on receipt of the call letter, the petitioners went to Salem and made a request to the respondents to allow them to take part in the interview, but their request was not considered by the respondents. It is the grievance of the petitioners that if the call letters were sent in advance, they would have received the same before 18.02.2016 and that they would have participated in the interview.
3. In reply, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents have sent the call letters well in advance and since the petitioners, who are residing in Kancheepuram, have erroneously given the Pin code as 630 501, which is meant for Sivagangai, instead of 631 501, the letters have been despatched to Karaikudi, which is the Head Quarters for Sivagangai, on 15.02.2016 and subsequently, it was redirected to Kancheepuram on 17.2.2016 and delivered the same on 18.2.2016 at 03.06 p.m to the petitioners. She would further submit that though the respondents have issued call letters well in advance, in view of the mistake committed by the petitioners in their application in mentioning the wrong Pin Code, they could not get the call letters in time. Adding further, she would submit that the petitioners have not produced any records to show that they have reached the place of interview on 19.2.2016 and made a request before the respondents.
4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are residing in Kancheepuram and that they have mentioned wrong Pin code in their application. As per the track events of the India post, which is enclosed at page 18 of the typed set of papers, it is seen since the petitioners have mentioned the Pin code meant for Sivagangai, the bag has been despatched to Karaikudi on 15.02.2016, which is the Head Quarters of Sivagangai. Thereafter, the bag has been redirected to Kancheepuram on 17.02.2016 and the same has been delivered to the petitioners on 18.2.2016 at 3.06 p.m. The petitioners have not produced any acceptable evidence to show that they have approached the respondents and made a request to permit them to take part in the interview, which was scheduled to be held on 19.02.2016. In
fact, the speed post receipt dated 19.02.2016 shows that the petitioners have sent a letter on 19.02.2016 to the respondents, which cannot be accepted as the petitioners have not taken the matter diligently by approaching the respondents in person. Therefore, I find no merit in the writ petitions and the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ga To
1. The Director of Sericulture Nethaji Nagar, Hasthampatti Salem - 636 007.
2. The Assistant Director of Sericulture Folks Compound, Anaimedu, Salem - 636 001 +2cc to Mr.M. Saravanakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.12007 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.12143 VGI(CO) EU(22/04/2016) W.P.Nos.6989 and 6990 of 2016