A.Paramasivan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH and WMP No.18695 of 2017 A.Paramasivan ... Petitioner Vs
1. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
2. The District Employment Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3. The Tahsildar, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders dated 02.05.2017 made in Na.Ka.No.6967/2012/B1 and 12.05.2017 made in Na.Ka.No.6967/2012/A2 passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Village Assistant at Harur Taluk in the existing vacancy based on the interview dated 04.08.2012 held by the 1st respondent in pursuance of the call letter 1/4
dated 26.07.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.15348/2009/A5 issued by the 1st respondent within the stipulated time.
For petitioner ...
Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondents ...
Mr.T.Chezhiyian AGP
O R D E R
The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Village Assistant, who had participated in the interview held on 04.08.2012. However, he was not selected. When he had earlier sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Village Assistant at Harur Taluk in the existing vacancy, this Court, by order dated 11.01.2017, in W.P.No.914 of 2017, had directed the concerned respondents to consider the petitioner's representation in this regard within a stipulated time. In this background, the present impugned order dated 02.05.2017 came to be passed stating that pursuant to the interview held on 04.08.2012, marks were awarded on the basis of the interview and the educational qualification and accordingly, suitable candidates were appointed and they are now serving.
2. Apparently, the petitioner herein was not found to be suitable based on the 2/4
marks obtained by him during the course of personal interview. If that be the case, the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek for appointment directly to the post.
3. The respondents, in the counter affidavit, have also stated that his subsequent request made in the year 2017, was also replied stating that there is no vacancy in the concerned post.
4. Since the petitioner herein, as a matter of right, cannot seek appointment when he had failed to qualify in the personal interview, there is no merit in this writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.01.2023 Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr M.S.RAMESH,J., 3/4
sr To
1. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
2. The District Employment Officer, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3. The Tahsildar, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District 04.01.2023 4/4