Judgment :- 1. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the interview scheduled to be held on 25.11.2009 or any other date by declaring the petitioner's result for the examination conducted pursuant to Advertisement No.162 and consequently appoint the petitioner for the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector in Tamil Nadu Electrical Inspectorate Service, post code No.1728. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had all the required qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector. He is a degree holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and he has got the required experience namely practical experience in large electricity supply undertakings and as such he is qualified for both and produced the experience certificates and having stood over first in the written examination also, he was not called for interview. Hence, he has come forward with this writ petition. His grievance now is, other persons who are not fully qualified is also appointed. 3. Learned counsel for the first respondent has filed a detailed counter and stated that on the date of notification namely 5.5.2008, the candidates were required to possess the practical experience as stipulated in the notification. The petitioner who had applied for appointment, by direct recruitment, had engineering degree namely, B.E. (Electrical and Electronic) Engineering and initially worked as Maintenance Electrical Engineer in Nagaa Hitec Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., from July 1998 to June 2003. Thereafter, as Assistant Engineer in Radha Engineering Works and posted in External coal handling system at North Chennai Thermal Power Station from 1.7.2003, till the date of application. According to the first respondent, the candidates must have a practical experience on or before the date of notification i.e., 5.5.2008. As far as the experience certificate produced by the petitioner, the same was sent for verification to the Head of the Department concerned, whether the experience possessed by the candidate may be considered as equivalent to the experience prescribed for the post, as per the notification. In this regard, the Head of Department, Chief Electrical Inspector to Government, who is the competent authority, vide his letter dated 22.09.2008 had replied that the experience possessed by the petitioner cannot be considered equivalent to the experience prescribed for the post. In this regard, the Head of Department, Chief Electrical Inspector to Government, who is the competent authority, vide his letter dated 22.09.2008 had replied that the experience possessed by the petitioner cannot be considered equivalent to the experience prescribed for the post. Therefore, considering the reply received from the Head of the Department, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Commission. Hence, he has filed this writ petition. But, pursuant to the interim order he was directed to attend the interview but the publication of his result was subject to the outcome of the writ petition and merely because he has attended the interview will not confer any right to the petitioner. In obedience to the order of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to oral test provisionally. When the experience certificate of the petitioner is not equivalent to the experience certificate prescribed, the Commission has rightly rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has filed a detailed counter and would mainly contend that the qualification required pertains to practical experience, since large electricity supply undertakings were already acquired by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The first respondent referred a list containing 27 candidates to the second respondent for evaluation based on the practical experience. Therefore, the second respondent evolved a basis, based on the experience gained in a similar nature of work for enabling selection as follows: a. Public Sector Undertakings, Departments and Organizations of State and Central Governments. b. Extra High Voltage Consumers where complex nature of electrical installations and process equipments are handled. c. ESA contractor's employees, who involve in design, erection and commissioning of major projects involving EHV installations and power generating projects. Based on that, 7 candidates have been selected, whose experience was considered to be equivalent to the required qualification. The petitioner's name was not considered as he had only two years practical experience in the External Coal handling system at North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai through outsourcing by the firm M/s.Radha Engineering Works, Chennai as against the requisite experience of three years. The earlier experience of about five years at M/s. Nagaa Hi-Tec Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., was not considered as an experience of similar nature. 5. He would also specifically contend that the practical experience of the selected candidates namely Karuppasamy and Ganesan are inferior to that of the petitioner, is not correct. The earlier experience of about five years at M/s. Nagaa Hi-Tec Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., was not considered as an experience of similar nature. 5. He would also specifically contend that the practical experience of the selected candidates namely Karuppasamy and Ganesan are inferior to that of the petitioner, is not correct. Both the candidates possessed the experience falling under the categories of organizations as aforestated. Out of the 27 candidates who applied, the first respondent short listed 12 candidates for the total vacancy of 10 posts and out of which, only 7 posts have been filled up. Two posts have been kept pending because of non-availability of Scheduled Caste candidates and one post was kept reserved in view of the writ petition. 6. Heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself has been taken up for final disposal. 8. At the time of admission, this Court directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to produce the original file, as the petitioner was mainly contending that some of the candidates who had been selected do not have the prescribed qualifications. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the original file was produced. Learned counsel for the first respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission fairly contended that out of the 7 candidates selected, one candidate B. Ganesh, whose name was not in the list of 12 eligible candidates, originally short listed by the first respondent, has also been appointed vide proceedings in C.No.779/OTD/3C/2008 dated 28.12.2011 and action is being taken against the error committed officials for having included a person, not having the required qualification being selected. Already process is on, for taking necessary action against them. Hence, that is regretted. Then, when we consider the selection process, it is very clear that out of 27 applicants, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has sought for clarification from the State Government, namely, the Chief Electrical Inspector, who is the competent authority to analyse whether or not the persons have the requisite qualification namely, the practical experience. The Chief Inspector has evolved a methodology to formulate the experience in tune with the required experience, as per the notification. As per the Chief Electrical Inspector, he has formulated these two categories for operating liability. a. Public Sector Undertakings, Departments and Organizations of State and Central Governments. The Chief Inspector has evolved a methodology to formulate the experience in tune with the required experience, as per the notification. As per the Chief Electrical Inspector, he has formulated these two categories for operating liability. a. Public Sector Undertakings, Departments and Organizations of State and Central Governments. b. Extra High Voltage Consumers where complex nature of electrical installations and process equipments are handled. c. ESA contractor's employees, who involve in design, erection and commissioning of major projects involving EHV installations and power generating projects. Therefore, vide his proceedings dated 22.09.2008 in Lr. No.025142/CEIG/2008, has compared all the applications and given 11 names of candidates. In the said 11 names, the petitioner's name does not find a place. Thereafter, on 30.09.2008, in continuation of the earlier letter one more name has been recommended, who has worked with Southern Railway. Out of these 12 names, procedural selection has now been made and 7 has been concluded. Of the 7, as stated earlier one name has been included wrongly, for which action is being taken. As far as R.Karuppasamy and S.Ganesan are concerned, S. Ganesan has not been selected. The final selection list of candidates have been produced before this court leads with only R. Karuppasamy. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he has no specific clarification. As per the letter dated 22.09.2008, the respondents have considered the experience and have categorically stated that as he had worked in a State Government Spinning Mills at Erode, his experience is equivalent to that of the prescribed qualification. So, that objection also could not be accepted. In so far as the petitioner's qualification is concerned, both the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as well as the Government has categorically stated, so far as practical experience is concerned he does not have the three years practical experience for the simple reason the work experience in Naga Hi-Tech Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., is not considered as an experience of similar nature as aforestated. The petitioner has worked in the External Coal handling system at North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai through outsourcing by the firm M/s.Radha Engineering Works, Chennai for a period of two years only as against the requisite experience of three years. The petitioner has worked in the External Coal handling system at North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai through outsourcing by the firm M/s.Radha Engineering Works, Chennai for a period of two years only as against the requisite experience of three years. Whereas the earlier experience of about five years at M/s. Nagaa Hi-Tec Heavy Engineering Pvt. Ltd., was not considered as an experience of similar nature, as the above company is a very small one, as far as the electricity is concerned, it does not even have a high voltage consumer. Therefore, the Chief Electrical Inspector has rejected his experience on the ground that the petitioner has only two years of requisite experience and not three years. In any way, this experience has to be decided by the expert authority. The expert authority, the Chief Electrical Inspector has analysed the entire details and come to a conclusion that the petitioner will not come under the category of eligible candidates eventhough he has passed in the written examination, since he does not possess the requisite practical experience. Therefore, this Court does not find any discrepancy on the practical experience as decided by the respondents. In so far as the complaint of the petitioner that ineligible persons have been posted, who is not in the selection list, for which necessary action is being taken by the Government and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the appointment of the other six persons are concerned. The prayer in the writ petition is only for a Mandamus , permitting him to attend the interview, even at the admission stage level. But, his experience has to be fixed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which is rightly held for selection. Therefore, the writ petition now is not sustainable. 9. Recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, that necessary action is being initiated in respect of the selection of a non-suitable person and cancellation of his appointment, the writ petition is dismissed. The original file has been seen and returned. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No order as to costs.