Madras High CourtWP(MD)/21566/2025dismissed

Rajeshkannan v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu

2025-08-11Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani6 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 11/08/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP (MD). No.21566 of 2025 and WMP(MD) Nos.16667 and 16668 of 2025 Rajeshkannan ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009..

2. The Registrar of Cooperative, Societies, N.V Natarajan Maligai, No. 170, Periyar E.V.R High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010..

3. District Recruitment Bureau,, Tenkasi District, Rep by its the Chairman / Joint Registrar, O/o the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, No.254/5, Rail Nagar Road, Jayam Nagar, Tenkasi District

4. The Controller of Examination, District Recruitment Bureau, Tenkasi District, No.254/5, Rail Nagar Road, Jayam Nagar, Tenkasi District..

... Respondents 1/6

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned selection list published by the 4th respondent in Notification No. 01/2024, dt 07.07.2025, quash the same and direct the respondents 3 and 4 to conduct the selection process for the post of Salesmen notified by the 3rd respondent vide Advertisement No. 01/2024, dt. 09.10.2024 afresh by following the procedures under law.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.SRA.Ramachandran for

ORDER

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging impugned selection list published by the 4th respondent in Notification No. 01/2024, dated 07.07.2025, and to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to conduct the selection process for the post of Salesmen notified by the 3rd respondent vide Advertisement No. 01/2024, dated 09.10.2024 afresh by following the procedures under law.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Salesman in the respondent Society. As per the notification dated 09.10.2024, the estimated vacancy is only 40, however, contrary to the estimated vacancy, 52 candidates were selected and apart from that communal roster system was not followed. On these grounds, the learned counsel prays for interference.

4. However, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend that the writ petition is not at all maintainable for more than one reason. He would submit that the petitioner has participated in the selection process as PSTM candidates under BC category and the cut off marks for BC category is 77.9 whereas, he has secured only 51.79. Even as per the notification, the total number of candidates participated in the selection process is 3067, whereas, the petitioner range is 1318 and apart from that as per the notification, the estimated vacancies is only 40, however, due to the retirement/resignation occurred in the particular recruitment year, the vacancies have been increased and therefore, the respondent increased 52 3/6

instead of 40 for the recruitment year and thereby the present selection was processed and tentative provisional list was published and the petitioner has not secured minimum cut off, which is required to be fulfilled under the BC PSTM category.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has participated in the selection process, however, the petitioner is not able to secure the cut off under the BC PSTM category. Though it is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of 40 vacancies, the respondent has selected 52 candidates, for which, the respondent has answered by saying that due to increase in vacancies for the current recruitment year, the vacancies have been increased. It is also to be seen that though the petitioner challenges his non selection, the successful candidates have not been impleaded as parties. Hence, for non joinder of necessary parties also, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also pertinent to note that without challenging his non selection, the petitioner has challenged the entire selection 4/6

process. When the petitioner has not even secured required cut off marks for BC PSTM category, the petitioner has challenged the selection process is not at all sustainable. Accordingly, for these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 11.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR TO

1. The Principal Secretary, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009..

2. The Registrar of Cooperative, Societies, N.V Natarajan Maligai, No. 170, Periyar E.V.R High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010..

4. The Controller of Examination, District Recruitment Bureau, Tenkasi District, No.254/5, Rail Nagar Road, Jayam Nagar, Tenkasi District.

5/6

M.DHANDAPANI,J RR

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.21566 of 2025 Date : 11/08/2025 6/6