The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a recruitment notification for the post of Handloom Inspector. The Court held that the qualification prescribed in the notification was consistent with recently amended service rules.
The writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.11.2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
W.P.(MD)No.16851 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
G.Manoharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State,
By the Principal Secretary, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director, Commissionerate of Handlooms & Textiles, 2nd Floor, Kuralagam, Chennai-600 108.
3.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Frazer Bridge School, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Notification issued by the 3rd respondent in Notification No.14/2013 dated 05.09.2013, more particularly the educational qualification mentioned in 3(B)(a) as (i) in Sl.No.16 for the post of Handloom Inspector in Handlooms and Textiles Department is concerned and quash the same and further direct the 3rd respondent to conduct separate Technical Post Examination for the post of Handloom Inspector in Handlooms and Textiles Department adhering the qualification prescribed in Section 8 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Handlooms and Textiles Subordinate Service.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, Additional Government Pleader for R3
2
ORDER
The petitioner has got Diploma in Textile Technology (DTT) and B.Tech in Textile Technology to his credit. He has been working as lecturer in Arulmigu Palaniandavar Polytechnic College, Palani. Now the third respondent, vide Notification No.14/2013 dated 05.09.2013, has called for applications for various posts under Combined Civil Services Exam-II (Group II) (Interview Posts). One such post for which Notification was issued is Handloom Inspector under Sl.No.17. The said post is governed by the Tamil Nadu Handlooms and Textiles Subordinate Service Rules. According to the petitioner, as per the said Rule, the qualification for the said post of Handloom Inspector is Diploma in Handloom Technology or Textile Technology or Textile Processing or Manmade Fiber Technology awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training in Tamil Nadu. But in the Notification, the third respondent has brought the post of Handloom Inspector in Combined Civil Services Examination, which is contrary to the Rules and Annual Recruitment Planner 2013-2014. With this grievance, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition, challenging the said Notification.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleaders appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleaders submitted that the above stated Rule has now been amended as per G.O.Ms.No.33, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (E2) Department, dated 19.02.2013. As per the amended Rule, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the qualification is Degree in B.A., B.Sc. or B.Com., of any University recognised by the University Grants Commission or must possess a Diploma in Handloom Technology or Textile Technology or Textile Processing or Man made Fibre Technology awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu. In view of the said amendment only, Notification has been made prescribing the qualifications according to the said Rules.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the above amendment made.
5.I have considered the above submissions. Now the Notification impugned in the writ petition is strictly is in accordance with the amended Rule. The qualification for the post of Handloom Inspector has been prescribed in the Notification strictly in accordance with the amended Rule. In view of the same, the challenge made to the Notification in respect of the post of Handloom Inspector must fail.
6.In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
3
To
Government of Tamil Nadu, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director,
Commissionerate of Handlooms & Textiles, 2nd Floor, Kuralagam,
Chennai-600 108.
3.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Frazer Bridge School, V.O.C.Nagar,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
+1cc to Mr.D.Venkatesh Advocate, Sr.No.56418
+1cc to Spl.Goverment Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, Sr.No.56700
km
AA/26.11.2013/ 3p- 6c/
W.P.(MD)No.16851 of 2013 and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 18.11.2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the notification prescribing the educational qualification for the post of Handloom Inspector is valid in light of the amended service rules.
Whether the Educational qualification prescribed in Notification No.14/2013 is in conformity with the amended Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Handlooms and Textiles Subordinate Service.
G.Manoharan
The State by the Principal Secretary, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles & Khadi Department
The Director, Commissionerate of Handlooms & Textiles
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
S.Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
