Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2544 (MAD)

P. Sundar v. District Collector, Nagercoil

2012-06-20

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Office Assistant in compliance with the order passed by the Commissioner, Panchayat Union bearing No.A1/162/2001 dated 22.02.2001. 2. The two posts of Office Assistants were kept vacant in the office of the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Rajakkamangalam, Kanyakumari District. The requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange for filling up the posts. The name of the petitioner was accordingly sponsored for appointment to the post of Office Assistant. 3. The petitioner was interviewed and his documents were verified by the competent authority. The petitioner along with one Sahul Hameed were selected on merit and their names were sent to the first respondent on 22.02.2001 for appointment as Office Assistant. 4. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in spite of selection of the petitioner, the appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner without assigning any reason. 5. The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a direction to issue appointment letter to the petitioner as it was not the case of the respondent that they had withheld the post and decided to abandon the selection. The action of the respondents therefore is discriminatory and stated to be arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the counter filed by the respondent, the factum that the petitioner being selected is not disputed. The only stand taken by the respondent is that appointment letter could not be issued to the petitioner, as the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal restrained the respondents from issuing appointment letter to the petitioner in O.A.No.3214 of 2001. 7. It is pleaded that stay was granted in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as per the guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms.No.114 R.D. Dept., dated 6.5.2000. The Government order was challenged by the Cholera Mazdoor Association in O.A.No.3214 of 2001. The positive stand taken in the counter was that the appointment could be made only after vacation of the interim stay. 8. It is reported that W.P.No.2282 of 2007 O.A.No.3214 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court on 17.06.2011. 9. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition and stand taken in the counter this writ petition is allowed. The positive stand taken in the counter was that the appointment could be made only after vacation of the interim stay. 8. It is reported that W.P.No.2282 of 2007 O.A.No.3214 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court on 17.06.2011. 9. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition and stand taken in the counter this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Office Assistant. 10. However, keeping in view of the fact that no fault can be found with the respondents in not offering appointment to the petitioner in time in view of the stay granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any backwages on the principle of no work no pay. 11. The appointment letter be issued to the petitioner within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.