R. Manimaran v. The Chairman And Managing Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No. 25697of 2018 R.Manimaran
...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, No.114, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Vellore E.B.Circle, TANGEDCO, Vellore District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ or order or orders or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider representation dated 22.09.2016 in accordance with law within stipulated period. For Petitioner :Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Fakhir Mohideen, Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 22.09.2016. The representation dated 22.09.2016 is enclosed in page no.49 of the typed set of papers filed along with the present writ petition.
2. The representation was addressed to the Managing Director, TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and to the Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Vellore. The claim of the writ petitioner in the representation is that, he should be appointed to the post of Assistant by way of direct recruitment. The writ petitioner states that, he submitted an application for recruitment to the post of Assistant during the year 2009 and he received the call letter for interview and participated in the interview.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. However, the writ petitioner was not selected. Few other candidates who participated in the process of selection filed writ petition before the Madras High Court and based on the orders of the High Court, some persons were appointed in the Board. Thus, the similar benefit is to be extended to the writ petitioner.
4. The very relief sought for in the present writ petition is misconceived. The writ petitioner admittedly participated in the process of selection during the year 2009. Now after a lapse of about 9 1⁄2 years, the writ petitioner cannot file a writ petition for a direction to direct the respondents to consider the representation. Mere participation in the process of selection would not confer any right on the candidate to seek appointment. The orders passed by the Hight Court may not have any implications as far as the persons who all are not parties to the writ petition, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner claims appointment to the post of Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.
5. This being the factum, the relief as such sought for cannot be granted, as the writ petitioner has not established even a semblance of legal right. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Pkn To
1. The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO, No.114, Anna Salai, Chennai.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Vellore E.B.Circle, TANGEDCO, Vellore District.
+1cc to Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen, Advocate SR.No.23422 W.P.No.25697 of 2018 EV(CO) GMY(23/04/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/