V.Antony Selvam, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN V.Antony Selvam ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Division.
4.The Thasildar, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District 5.The District Employment Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
6.Selvi ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ 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 connected with order in Na.Ka.A7/1016/2011 dated 23.01.2013 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal consequently directing the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant for Muthur Village, Ilayangudi Taluk in Sivagangai District on the basis of the Interview held on 02.09.2011 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 16.09.2013. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, - R1 to R5 Special Government Pleader : Mr.M.Saravanakumar - R6
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.A7/1016/2011, dated 23.01.2013 and consequently 1/3
to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant for Muthur Village, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District on the basis of the Interview held on 02.09.2011 by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 16.09.2013.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has applied for the post of Village Assistant (jiyahhp) and after the interview was over, he was informed that he was selected. However, instead of appointing him as a Village Assistant, the sixth respondent namely, Selvi was appointed in the said post. Therefore, this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submitted that two persons namely, the petitioner and the sixth respondent, whose actual name is Palaniselvi W/o.Saravanan, participated in the interview. The Committee constituted for conducting the interview was of the view that the sixth respondent had better credentials and also seniority, as per the list sent by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, she was selected.
4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the sixth respondent that the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the sixth respondent and the sixth respondent was properly and rightly selected.
5. The noting of the result of the interview also reflects that though both the petitioner and the sixth respondent knew how to ride a cycle, petitioner lacks seniority as per the Employment Exchange list.
6. From these submissions, this Court finds that there is nothing illegal or violation is made out so far as the appointment of the sixth respondent as Village Assistant. It is to be noted that the appointment of the sixth respondent is not challenged in this writ petition. Thus, the aforesaid relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS III) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 2/3
rm To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District.
2.The District Revenue Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai Division.
4.The Thasildar, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District 5.The District Employment Officer, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-24884[F] dated 09/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.M.SARAVANA KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-24986[F] dated 10/06/2022 ) 08.06.2022 SS(14/06/2022) 3P 8C 3/3