Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4094 (MAD)

P. Ponnambaladasan v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2014-11-03

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Heard Mrs.Malathi Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is filed against the dismissal order made in W.P.No.8499 of 2008 dated 20.04.2012, wherein, the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 01.06.2007 and the consequential order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 23.11.2007 were sought to be set aside and prayed for a consequential direction to comply with the order of appointment issued to the appellant dated 29.04.1999. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are that the appellant belongs to SC community. He passed the SSLC examination. He registered his name in the Employment Exchange, Villupuram, on 15.07.1981 and his Registration No is 3071. The appellant, being an eligible candidate, his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the 3rd respondent for filling up two vacancies of Night Watchman post. The 3rd respondent issued an interview call letter dated 26.03.1999. The appellant also attended the interview and was selected by the 3rd respondent along with one Sheik Madar Hussain as Night Watchman. The 3rd respondent sent an appointment order on 29.04.1999, stating that the appellant was selected and appointed as Night Watchman in the office of the 4th respondent. After receiving the appointment order, the appellant reported before the 4th respondent for attending duty. 4. The 4th respondent requested the appellant to come on 05.05.1999, stating that he has not received any communication in this regard from the 3rd respondent. The appellant approached the 3rd respondent and requested to permit him to join duty. However, the 3rd respondent had taken the original order of appointment from the appellant and told that there is a mistake in mentioning the native village and for correcting the same, one week time is required. Again, the appellant approached the 3rd respondent after one week. However, no posting order was given and the appellant was also not allowed to join duty, even though he was fully qualified, sponsored by the Employment Exchange, interviewed and was selected and appointed. The said Sheik Madar Hussain was also not permitted to join duty as in the case of the appellant. 5. However, no posting order was given and the appellant was also not allowed to join duty, even though he was fully qualified, sponsored by the Employment Exchange, interviewed and was selected and appointed. The said Sheik Madar Hussain was also not permitted to join duty as in the case of the appellant. 5. The appellant filed O.A.No.3619 of 1999, praying for a direction to comply with the order of appointment dated 29.04.1999, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The said Sheik Madar Hussain has also filed O.A.No.4751 of 1999. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal on 02.07.2002, giving direction to appoint the said Sheik Madar Hussain in the available vacancy and if no vacancy was available, he was directed to be given appointment in the vacancy to arise in the nearest future. The said order was complied with by issuing G.O.Ms.No.99, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 05.09.2006. The appellant also filed another O.A.No.2233 of 2004 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by the Tribunal, by order dated 02.06.2004, on the same lines stating that the appellant shall be considered for appointment in the existing vacancy or in the arising vacancy in future. However, O.A.No.3619 of 1999 filed by the appellant was transferred to this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and re-numbered as W.P.No.42270 of 2006. When the appellant approached the 2nd respondent, he was informed that his representation cannot be considered since W.P.No.42270 of 2006 is pending before this Court and hence, the appellant withdrawn the said W.P.No.42270 of 2006. However, the claim of the appellant was rejected by order dated 01.06.2007, by stating that the appellant is not qualified and therefore, he cannot be appointed in the existing or in future vacancies. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing W.P.No.27052 of 2007 and this Court, by order dated 13.08.2007, disposed of the said writ petition by giving direction to dispose of the representation of the appellant dated 12.06.2007, which was given subsequent to the rejection order dated 01.06.2007, within a period of six weeks. Even thereafter, the request of the appellant was rejected by order dated 23.11.2007. The said orders dated 01.06.2007 and 23.11.2007 were subsequently challenged in W.P.No.8499 of 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 20.04.2012. Even thereafter, the request of the appellant was rejected by order dated 23.11.2007. The said orders dated 01.06.2007 and 23.11.2007 were subsequently challenged in W.P.No.8499 of 2008. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 20.04.2012. Aggrieved against the said order, this Writ Appeal is filed. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has passed SSLC and his name was also sponsored by the Employment Officer, Villupuram. The prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of Night Watchman is SSLC or 10th Standard fail. He is fully qualified for appointment to the said post. Hence, the reason mentioned by the District Registrar, Villupuram, for rejecting the request of the appellant that he was not qualified is erroneous and not giving appointment/posting order to the appellant while giving posting order to the said Sheik Madar Hussain is discriminatory. 7. When the matter was heard on earlier occasion, this Court asked whether any vacancy is available in Villupuram District to accommodate the appellant, as he is fully qualified, his name was already sponsored by the Employment Exchange, he was interviewed and though he was given appointment order, not allowed to join, particularly, when a similarly placed person viz., Sheik Madar Hussain, who was also appointed and not allowed to join, was accommodated on the basis of the Tribunal's order passed in O.A.No.4751 of 1999 dated 02.07.2002 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 05.09.2006. 8. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has produced an affidavit sworn by the 3rd respondent dated today viz., 03.11.2014, wherein, it is stated that at present there are five vacancies of Night Watchman available in the Villupuram District in Registration Department. 9. In the light of the above, there may not be any difficulty to accommodate the appellant in any one of the vacant post as Night Watchman, as he is fully qualified, already sponsored by the Employment Exchange, selected after due interview and he was also given appointment order and similarly placed person was given appointment by complying with similar order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on 02.07.2002, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 05.09.2006. 10. 10. Hence, the Writ Appeal is allowed with a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue posting order to the appellant in any one of the vacant post in Villupuram District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.