Madras High CourtWP(MD)/4199/2014dismissed

C. Ravichandran, v. The Managing Director

2019-07-04Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.07.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD) No.4199 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2014 C.Ravichandran ... Petitioner vs.

1.The Managing Director cum Chairman Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) No.114, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 2.The Chief Engineer Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO) No.114, Anna Salai, Chennai-2 3.The Director of Technical Education Guindy, Chennai ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to selection list for the post of Technical Assistant (EEE) published by the 1st Respondent Corporation on 24.02.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent Board to conduct recruitment afresh for the post of Technical Assistant (EEE).

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar For Respondents :

Mr.G.Kasinathadurai for R1 & R2 Mr.S.Dhayalan Government Advocate for R3

O R D E R

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the entire process of selection for the post of Technical Assistant (EEE) had already been concluded and the selected candidates were appointed and are working as such for the past more than five years.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. In view of the above submissions, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant

(EEE) cannot be considered and it is left open to the writ petitioner to participate in the ensuing recruitments, if any notified.

3. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the persons, who secured lesser marks, were appointed as Technical Assistants. In such an event, the writ petitioner ought to have impleaded those candidates as party respondents in the present writ petition and challenged their appointment orders. Without doing so, the appointments made in favour of third parties cannot be quashed by this Court in the present writ petition.

4. With these observations, the writ petition stands closed.

No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar ( AD-I) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) krk To:

The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai.

+1CC TO M/S. Special Government Pleader Sr.No.73759 +1cc To M/S.G.KASINATHADURAI, Advocate, Sr.No.73649 +1CC TO M/S. Special Government Pleader Sr.No.73912 W.P.(MD) No.4199 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 3 of 2014 04.07.2019 BUC(15.07.2019) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/