Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that he should have been selected and appointed, as a Sweeper, based on the interview held by the respondent, on 2.9.2011, as his name had been sponsored by the employment exchange concerned. However, the respondent had selected the other candidates without choosing the petitioner for such appointment. The claim made on behalf of the respondent that the interview, scheduled to be held, on 2.9.2011, had been postponed to 7.9.2011, on administrative grounds, is incorrect. Therefore, the selection of candidates, for the post of Sweeper, made on 7.9.2011, ought to be held as arbitrary and invalid. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the interview, scheduled to be held on 2.9.2011, had been postponed to 7.9.2011, due to administrative reasons. Out of the twelve candidates, who had appeared during the interview, held on 7.9.2011, three of them, namely, Velumani, Anandaraj and Sundaram had been selected and they had joined duty, on 8.9.2011, as sanitary workers, in the respondent panchayat. The said candidates had been selected, based on communal rotation, by following the policy of reservation. He had further submitted that the selection of the candidates concerned was fair and proper, contrary to the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not placed sufficient evidence before this Court to substantiate his claim. From the records available before this Court, it is seen that an interview had been held, on 7.9.2011, for the selection of sanitary workers in the respondent panchayat. Out of the twelve candidates called for the interview three of them had been selected, by following the procedures prescribed for such selection, based on communal rotation, by following the policy of reservation. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to prove his claim that an interview had taken place on 2.9.2011 and that he was placed at the top of the selection list, based on his seniority in the employment exchange concerned. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to prove his claim that an interview had taken place on 2.9.2011 and that he was placed at the top of the selection list, based on his seniority in the employment exchange concerned. As such the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.