Thangamalar T v. The General Manager (Hr)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29/08/2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP (MD). No.23462 of 2025 and WMP(MD) Nos.18433 and 18434 of 2025 Thangamalar T ... Petitioner Vs

1. The General Manager (Hr), Airports Authority of India (Aai), Southern Region, Chennai - 600 016..

2. The Assistant General Manager, Airports Authority of India (Aai), Southern Region, Chennai - 600 016..

3. The Regional Executive Director, Airports Authority of India (Aai), Southern Region, Chennai - 600 016..

... Respondents PRAYER :-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the impugned advertisement ADVT.No.SR/01/2023 dated 21.08.2025 of the 3rd respondent, quash the same. 1/6

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Murugappan For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss

ORDER

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

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned advertisement of the 3rd respondent in ADVT.No.SR/01/2023 dated 21.08.2025.

3. The petitioner, since a qualified for the post of Senior Assistant, has applied to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the respondent department. He has also completed computer based written test on 18.03.2024 and cleared the said test. Subsequently, he has been called for document verification and computer literacy test, which is to be held on 30.08.2024. However, the 2nd respondent passed an order rejecting the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not been qualified. Subsequently, the respondents have called for other set of candidates for certificate verification and computer literacy test through the impugned notification. Aggrieved by the said notification, the petitioner is before 2/6

this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a qualified candidate and belongs to depressed community and she has applied to the post of Senior Assistant (Accounts) in the respondent department. After being successful in the computer based written examination, the petitioner was called for document verification and computer literacy test, which was conducted in Stenographers' Guild Complex, ie., a private agency and in view of the report given by the said private agency, the petitioner's candidature was rejected and a new notification was published calling for candidates for document verification and computer literacy test. The petitioner has also challenged the rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the notification published rejecting the petitioner's candidature, the learned counsel prays for interference.

3/6

5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that the petitioner belongs to depressed community and along with the petitioner, there are other two candidates, who were successful in the computer literacy test and the petitioner's rejection order was challenged in WP(MD) No.30143 of 2025 and in the absence of any interim orders, the entire notification cannot be withheld and the impugned order makes it clear that on the basis of the computer based written test, the candidates were called for provisionally for the second stage of recruitment and therefore, it cannot be stated to be illegal and accordingly, prays for dismissal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

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

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to depressed community and along with the petitioner, there are two more candidates 4/6

appeared for the aforesaid post and they have cleared the examination and they were selected and as far as the petitioner is concerned, since she was not performed well in the computer literacy test, her candidature was rejected and since there was no interim order operated against the respondents for the recruitment process, the present impugned notification has been published for the 2nd stage of recruitment, wherein, candidates were called for document verification and computer literacy test. Once the petitioner's candidature got rejected, the filing of writ petition to stall the entire selection process/notification is not at all maintainable. It is also to be noted that when the petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of the 2nd respondent, challenging the impugned notification is not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

29.08.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No RR 5/6

M.DHANDAPANI,J RR

ORDER

IN WP(MD) No.23462 of 2025 Date : 29/08/2025 6/6