Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 605 (MAD)

N. Pachaiyappan v. Collector of Cuddalore

2014-03-07

M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorarified mandamus in calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.Va.N.2(2)/56641/2012 dated 31.10.2012, and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for passing of an order in setting aside the selection of Thiru.Sasikumar/3rd Respondent and select him in the post of Village Assistant in Panruti Taluk. 2. According to the Petitioner, he belongs to Adi Dravidar (Schedule Caste) Community. After completing 9th std., in school, he registered his name in the District Employment Exchange at Cuddalore on 14.03.1992. His Employment Registration number is 14131/1992. Further, the Government of Tamil Nadu called for selection to the post of Village Assistants during the year 2012. 3. The 2nd Respondent/Tahsildar, Panruti, sent a personal interview letter to the Petitioner on 16.07.2012 directing him to attend the interview and he attended the interview by submitting all the relevant records on 25.07.2012. He made a personal request to the 2nd Respondent's office, Panrutti stating that he was aged about 40 years and that was his last interview and that he could not attend any interview again. 4. He attended the interview with all the relevant records before the 2nd Respondent. He received all the papers and told him that he would be intimated about the selection through post. Thereafter, he had not heard anything. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 10.08.2012 to the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue. The said office forwarded the same to the Secretary of the Department and also to the 1st Respondent. Still the Respondents had not sent any reply. As such, he applied to the Revenue Department through his advocate by RTI seeking information in regard to his non selection. His advocate received a reply stating that the 2nd Respondent would send a reply but he had not received any reply. 5. Finally, the 1st Respondent by the impugned order dated 30.09.2012 sent a reply to the Secretary, Revenue Department pointing out the grounds of his non-selection. As a matter of fact, the order points out that for 25 Village Assistants post, 125 applications were received and further that he was 9th candidate under O.C non priority in which 20 applications were received. Further, including himself, 18 persons participated. Since he had not produced a document for residential proof, four candidates under this category were selected. As a matter of fact, the order points out that for 25 Village Assistants post, 125 applications were received and further that he was 9th candidate under O.C non priority in which 20 applications were received. Further, including himself, 18 persons participated. Since he had not produced a document for residential proof, four candidates under this category were selected. Also, the order points out that three persons had registered earlier in Employment Exchange and hence, senior to him. The 4th candidate M.K.Sasikumar/3rd Respondent who lives in a village which is close to the place of work he was selected. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the selection criteria does not impose any condition that the selected candidate should be from the nearby village. Moreover, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner belongs to S.C category but he was wrongly shown in O.C non priority. As such, the order suffers from total non-application of mind. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the minimum educational qualification for the post of Village Assistant is passed in 5th Std. However, the impugned order of the 1st Respondent dated 30.09.2012 says that the other selected candidates are better readers of Tamil language. This is not a valid reason for rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. 8. Lastly, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was already 40 years old and it is his last chance for him to get Government Employment and if he is denied the same, certainly he and his family would be left on the street and would suffer irreparable hardship. 9. Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 & 2 that the Petitioner had not produced the Nativity Certificate for selection to the post of Village Assistant in the year 2012 and as such, he was not considered for selection to the said post by the Respondents 1 & 2. 10. 9. Conversely, it is the contention of the Learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 & 2 that the Petitioner had not produced the Nativity Certificate for selection to the post of Village Assistant in the year 2012 and as such, he was not considered for selection to the said post by the Respondents 1 & 2. 10. However, the Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent submits that 25 vacancies of Village Assistants arose in the office of the 2nd Respondent and that, the 3rd Respondent was sponsored through an Employment Exchange and called for interview on 25.07.2012 and on production of the Qualification and Nativity Certificates, he was selected and in fact, the 3rd Respondent at the time of interview was aged 36 years and belongs to the native of Paithambadi Village. 11. The Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent projects an argument that the 3rd Respondent was selected based on the qualification and other prescribed for selection to the post of Village Assistants in the 2nd Respondent's office and that, the 3rd Respondent appointed in the office of the 2nd Respondent on 30.07.2012 and working as Village Assistant in the said office. In fact, there is no illegality or irregularity in 3rd Respondent's selection as Village Assistant by the 2nd Respondent. 12. The Respondents 1 & 2 have produced the relevant files/records in regard to filling up vacant Village Assistant Post at Panrutti circle through Employment Exchange before this Court and it transpires that the petitioner was required through proceedings dated 16.07.2012 by the 2nd Respondent to produce Educational Qualification Certificates, (School/College TC and Mark list), Date of Birth (Birth Certificate or certificate issued by School/College), Community Certificate, Nativity Certificate (obtained from Tahsildar Office), Physical Fitness Certificate, Employment Registration Card (in original), Passport size photo. Further, the Petitioner was also informed that he must know cycling. 13. On perusal of file by this Court in m3/1955/2012 (produced by the Respondents 1 & 2 before this Court), it comes to be known that in Serial No.81 (in respect of Petitioner), it is mentioned as follows: 14. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 that 5 Village Assistants post of are still available and not yet filled up. 15. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 that 5 Village Assistants post of are still available and not yet filled up. 15. Further, it is evident from the file produced on behalf of the Respondents 1 & 2 that District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, on 20.06.2012 in Reference ne/K/f/m6-15755-2009 had addressed a D.O. Letter to the 2nd Respondent, Panruti (with a copy being mark – 2, 1.Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram and 2. Sub-Collector, Cuddalore, for information) inter alia stating that till date, the vacant posts were not filled up any one Tahsildar and a report for filling up the Village Assistant posts in full was not submitted by the Tahsildar's concerned and therefore, requested to fill up the all vacant Village Assistant Posts wholly before 31.07.2012 (including the Village Assistant Post not filled up due to absence of qualified persons) etc. Also in the said letter, District Revenue Officer had stated that in regard to subject to filling up of the Village Assistant Posts, the Revenue Department Minister was to conduct an inspection and therefore, requested after bestowing special attention by obtaining the list from the Employment Exchange Office and to fill up the post and if the Village Assistant Posts were not filled up before the date mentioned supra, the proceedings would be initiated against the erring Tahsildar. In turn, the Tahsildar, Panruti had addressed the communication in e/f/m3-1955-2012 dated 6/2012 to the District Employment Office, Cuddalore. 16. In the present case, the Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 10.08.2012 addressed to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister of Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, wherein he had inter alia stated that he was aged about 40 years and therefore, he had no possibility of getting a job in Government Employment Office in any Department and also, 24 posts of Village Assistants were filled up, one post remained unfilled and prayed for appointment to that post by recommending his name and to help him and appoint him. The Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5 in D.O letter No.t/epII (2)-45678-2012 dated 11.09.2012 addressed to the Personal Assistant of District Collector, Cuddalore, had sought for as to whether the Petitioner was issued with the appointment order or if appointment order was not issued to him reason for the same may be mentioned in the report. The Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 5 in D.O letter No.t/epII (2)-45678-2012 dated 11.09.2012 addressed to the Personal Assistant of District Collector, Cuddalore, had sought for as to whether the Petitioner was issued with the appointment order or if appointment order was not issued to him reason for the same may be mentioned in the report. Finally, the District Collector, Cuddalore in his Letter in e/f/m6-15755-2012 dated 30.09.2012 addressed to the Principle Secretary cum Revenue Administrative Commissioner had in para – 7 of the Communication among other things mentioned that the person appointed under Backward Community (Muslim Community Rotation) resigned his post and presently, the said post was remained vacant and as such, the Petitioner was not to be given the appointment (as stated by the Tahsildar, Panruti in his report.) 17. It is to be borne in mind that under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the word 'acts' in the phrase, 'documents' forming the acts or records of acts' is used in one and the same sense. As a matter of fact ' Public writings ' consist of acts of public functionaries, in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial departments of Government; including under this general caption, the transactions which official persons are required to enter in books or registers, in the course of their public duties, and which occur within the circle of their own personal knowledge and observation. 18. On a careful consideration of the respective contentions and this Court, taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in an integral fashion, comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Petitioner had not produced Nativity Certificate at the time of attending the personal interview in regard to the selection to the post of Village Assistant as evidenced by records (produced by the Respondents 1 & 2 side). As such, the Petitioner was not considered for selection to the post of said Village Assistant in the office of the 2nd Respondent. In this regard, although it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner produced all records, a perusal of the file produced by the Respondents 1 & 2 clearly points out that 'the Petitioner had not produced Nativity Certificate' and it was recorded by the officer concerned. In this regard, although it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner produced all records, a perusal of the file produced by the Respondents 1 & 2 clearly points out that 'the Petitioner had not produced Nativity Certificate' and it was recorded by the officer concerned. It is to be remembered that an Official act is presumed to be a valid and an authenticated one until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of this Court. Further, an entry made in a file is a 'Fact in Issue' or a 'Relevant Fact' as opined by this Court. Also that, such entry is an evidence of particular fact recorded by the officer concerned. Ordinarily, the contents of the file must reflect to the facts in issue or a ' relevant facts'. However, the 3rd Respondent was selected to the post of Village Assistant in the 2nd Respondent's office since he attended the interview on 25.07.2012 and produced all the requisite certificates like qualification, Nativity, etc., Therefore, the prayers of the Petitioner to set aside the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka.Va.N.2(2)/56641/2012 dated 31.10.2012 and to set aside the selection of the 3rd Respondent are not acceded to by this Court. 19. However, in view of the representation made on behalf of the Respondents 1 & 2 before this Court that there are 5 vacant posts of Village Assistant are still available as on date (to be filled up), this Court, on the basis of Fair Play, Equity, Good Conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the Respondents 1 & 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner (of course subject to suitability and eligibility) for an appointment to the post of Village Assistants in Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District, (based on his fresh representation in writing to be given by him within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order) in a fair, Just and dispassionate manner, based on the humanitarian and sympathetic consideration and on production of requisite original records/necessary certificates and to pass necessary orders (uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this writ petition.) within a period of six weeks thereafter, in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.