Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 350 (MAD)

D. Raveendran v. Teachers Recruitment Board

2015-01-22

M.VENUGOPAL, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2015
Judgment 1. The appellant/writ petitioner preferred the instant writ petition on 19.09.2012, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ or a direction to quash the provisional selection list of candidates selected for appointment on the post of P.G. Assistant-Economics for the year 2010-2011 published on 04.04.2012 so far as the same relates to the selection of candidates based on the employment seniority counted from the date of registration of P.G. qualification of the candidates instead of the date of registration of B.Ed qualification and G.T. (Priority) candidates and a further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner/appellant for selection on the post of P.G. Assistant -Economics in accordance with his employment registration seniority. 2. As aforestated, the select list for appointment was admittedly published on 04.04.2012. Thereafter, it was informed that the process of appointment was made. The petitioner had preferred the writ petition after a period of five months without impleading the selected employees, who were given preference of seniority on the basis of the date of registration of P.G. qualification. 3. The learned Single Judge, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the entire selection process was over and nothing remains for consideration in this petition, while dismissing the petition summarily. However, the fact that the select list was published on 04.04.2012 and the process of appointment, according to the learned Government Pleader, has been completed, is not disputable. 4. We have examined the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The appellant has failed to substantiate that counting of seniority as per the registration on the basis of P.G. qualification for the appointment on the post of P.G. Assistant -Economics, was contrary to any legal provisions or specified conditions of the advertisement. More so, candidates, who were selected on the basis of their seniority in the employment exchange, have also not been impleaded as party respondents. Thus, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, warranting no interference. Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.