Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 747 (MAD)

S. Nagaraju v. State of Tamil Nadu

2025-01-31

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : 1. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as under:- 1.1. The petitioner herein has got valid registration with the Respondent No.4 vide Registration No.VLD 2007M00020030 as on 01.11.2007 and the same relating back to 14.11.2002. From the qualifications that are possessed by the petitioner i.e., Degree Mathematics and B.Ed., (Telugu Medium), the petitioner is qualified for being appointed to the post of 'B.T Assistant, Mathematics (Telugu Medium)' as on 14.11.2002. While so, the Respondent No.2 herein called for the names of eligible candidates for being appointed to the post of Graduate Assistant backlog vacancies for the recruitment years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 in respect of the minority languages through employment seniority including the post of B.T Assistant, Mathematics (Telugu Medium). Accordingly, the Respondent No.4 has sponsored the names in the ratio of 1:5 and accordingly, the Respondent No.2 also called all the candidates whose names were sponsored for certificate verification. At that stage, the petitioner, on having come to know that he is not called for certificate verification, approached this court by filing W.P.No.23839 of 2012 and the said writ petition was dismissed by this court by an order dated 17.09.2012, on noticing that the name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the Respondent No.4 for being considered by the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.4 is not made party to the said writ petition. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to take appropriate steps against the Employment Exchange. 1.2. It was thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent No.2 herein with regard to selection and appointment of the Respondent No.5 against backlog minority vacancies of B.T Assistant, Mathematics (Telugu Medium) and also sought for a consequential direction, directing the Respondent No.4 herein to sponsor the name of the petitioner to the Respondent No.2 for appointment to the post of B.T Assistant, Mathematics (Telugu Medium). 2. As already noted above, the employment registration of the petitioner relates back to 14.11.2002 and whereas the employment registration of the Respondent No.5 herein is 04.05.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner and the Respondent No.5 belong to the same category. 2. As already noted above, the employment registration of the petitioner relates back to 14.11.2002 and whereas the employment registration of the Respondent No.5 herein is 04.05.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner and the Respondent No.5 belong to the same category. Had the name of the petitioner was sponsored by Respondent No.4 along with the name of the Respondent No.5, the petitioner would have got the benefit of appointment to the post B.T Assistant, Mathematics (Telugu Medium). 3. The Respondent No.6 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the employment registration of the petitioner was due for renewal in the month of November, 2010, but the petitioner defaulted in renewing the same. But it was subsequently renewed in month of May, 2011, by availing the 18 months concession given by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is also further stated that the entire process in the Employment Department was made online from 15.09.2010 and the entire legacy data were migrated to online. Because of its volume, there were lot of challenges during migration to online and therefore wide publicity was provided to the registrants to verify and update the data, if any missing, and accordingly several registrants have updated their data online. However, the petitioner has not came forward to seek any such updation and it was only on 18.10.2012, the petitioner updated his medium of instruction as 'Telugu'. 4. The relevant portion from the said counter-affidavit reads as under: “7. It is humbly submitted that Employment Department's entire process was made online from 15.09.2010 entire legacy data were migrated to online. Because of its volume, there were lot of challenges during migration, subsequently wide publicity were given to registrants to verify and update their data if anything missing. Lot of candidates visited employment offices during this period and updated their discrepancy in their registration data. In petitioner's employment registration, medium of instruction Telugu was not updated. He updated his medium of instruction as Telugu only on 18.10.2012 because of this discrepancy, his name was not in sponsorship list of 2011 Telugu BT Assistant.” From the above, it is evident that the medium of instruction as 'Telugu' was not updated online in respect of the petitioner and it is because of the said reason, the name of the petitioner was not sponsored along with the Respondent No.5. As seen from the above paragraph, it is evident that the Employee Department has given wide publicity to the registrants to verify and update their data, if any missing. 5. As against the specific averment made in the counter-affidavit, there is no rejoinder or reply, nor there is anything to contradict the said statement before this court. No doubt, the action of the Employment Department in not updating the medium of instruction, in respect of the petitioner, is a mistake on their part which resulted in depriving the petitioner from being sponsored for the recruitment in question. 6. Be that as it may, as contended by the Respondent No.6, wide publicity was given to update the data, if any missing. But the petitioner has not responded to the same and the said updation was done only on 18.10.2012 at the instance of the petitioner, by which date, the recruitment process has already come to an end. Thus, it is evident that the mistake, if any, it is on the part of the Respondent No.4 in not sponsoring the name of the petitioner along with the name of the Respondent No.5. As already noted above, the petitioner on an earlier occasion approached this court by filing the writ petition seeking a direction to appoint him as B.T Assistant, Mathematics (Telugu Medium), but the said writ petition was dismissed as noted above. The petitioner, having once again approached this court by filing the present writ petition, failed to seek any independent relief against the Respondents 4 and 6 for the error committed by them in not sponsoring the name of the petitioner along with the name of the Respondent No.5, but questioned the appointment of the Respondent No.5 to the post of B.T Assistant, Mathematics (Telugu Medium) and sought for a consequential direction to the Respondent No.4 to sponsor the name of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of B.T Assistant, Mathematics (Telugu Medium). The action of the Respondent No.2 in selecting and appointing the Respondent No.5 cannot be found to be fault, as the Respondent No.2 found the Respondent No.5 as eligible for the post in question from out of the names sponsored by the Respondent No.4 and accordingly, she was appointed. There cannot be said to be any error on the part of the Respondent No.2 in appointing the Respondent No.5. There cannot be said to be any error on the part of the Respondent No.2 in appointing the Respondent No.5. But the mistake is only on the part of the Respondents 4 and 6. But for the reasons best known, the petitioner has not sought for any independent relief against the action of the Respondents 4 and 6 in not sponsoring the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of interfering with the action of the Respondent No.2 in appointing the Respondent No.5 does not arise. 7. No doubt, from the material on record, it is evident that it is because of the omission on the part of the Respondent No.4 in not updating the medium of instruction against the employment registration of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner could not be sponsored to the Respondent No.2. But, at the same time, the entire system of employment registration was migrated to online system and wide publicity is also stated to have been given to the registrants to verify and update the particulars, if any missing. The petitioner has not taken any such steps at the relevant point of time. But such steps have been taken only on 18.10.2012 i.e., subsequent to the appointment of the Respondent No.5 herein. 8. In the circumstances, though the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate entitlement for being appointed in the place of the Respondent No.5 because of the error committed by the Respondents 4 and 5, this court is not inclined to interfere with the appointment of the Respondent No.5, especially taking into consideration the fact that the Respondent No.5 was appointed as early as in the year 2012 and has been working as such for all these years. Had the petitioner been vigilant and updated his medium of instruction when the Respondent No.4 has publicised about the migration to the online system, this unfortunate situation would not have arisen. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondents alone are responsible for the unfortunate situation in which the petitioner is placed, but it is also the petitioner, who is equally responsible for the same. In the circumstances, though this court has sympathy for the petitioner, this court is not inclined to interfere with the appointment made in favour of the Respondent No.5 by exercising its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, though this court has sympathy for the petitioner, this court is not inclined to interfere with the appointment made in favour of the Respondent No.5 by exercising its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.