Dismissed

K.Anbukkarasi, v. the Secretary , Tamil Nadu -

Madras HC14 Aug 2013WP(MD)/3862/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate challenging her rejection from the Tamil Nadu Statistical Services. The Court held that securing marks below the cut-off makes a candidate ineligible for appointment and noted that disputes on experience equivalence are questions of fact.

What did the court decide?

No order passed as the writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

K.Anbukkarasi, Vs the Secretary , Tamil Nadu - — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14 .08.2013 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.3862 of 2011

¶5

and M.P (MD).Nos.1 of 2011 and 1 of 2012 K.Anbukkarasi ... Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Commercial Tax Office Annex Building, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶8

The Joint Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Commercial Tax Office Annex Building, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondents

¶9

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the 2^nd respondent vide his memo No.8655/OTD.C2 1998 dated 08.09.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to provide an appoint to the petitioner in the post of Assistant Director of Statistics in Tamil Nadu Statistical Services.

¶10

For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Anand For Respondents ... Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Spl.G.P for R1 Mr.S.Nandhakumar for Mr.S.P.Maharajan for R2

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 08.09.2010 issued in the form of a memo, issued by the second respondent in his Proceeding No.8655/OTD-C2/1998. The petitioner herein has sought an order in the nature of writ of certiofarified mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order issued in the form of a memo and quash the same, consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to provide appointment to the petitioner in the post of Assistant Director of Statistics in the Tamil Nadu Statistical Services and pass such further or other orders, as this Court deem fit and proper.

¶13

The petitioner has stated that the second respondent, Joint Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission intimated that the petitioner had secured 468.49 marks out of 910 marks in the examination conducted for the post of Assistant Director of Statistics in the Tamil Nadu Statistics Service, during 1999-2000. However, pursuant to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notification, dated 11.12.1998, the second respondent informed that the petitioner was not declared as a selected candidate, since he had not

¶14

¶15

reached the cut-off marks fixed by the respondents, which necessitated to file writ petition, seeking the relief sought for in the writ petition.

¶16

The petitioner has further stated that he is hailing from a poor family, passed B.A (Economics) in the year 1991, thereafter, completed M.A.(Economics) in the year 1993 and subsequently, passed Diploma course in Co-operative Management. After getting the aforesaid educational qualification, he sought employment at Madurai, in a Private Limited Company, Needless Private Ltd.,Trichy during 1994 in the cadre of Statistical Investigator in its marketing division. However, he could not continue his job in the said company, since the company was closed. Thereafter, he joined as Field Editor in Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, Dindigul for a period of six months, where he could see a notification, dated 11.12.1998 issued by the first respondent for the post of Assistant Director of Statistics in Tamil Nadu Statistics Services, for which the first respondent had prescribed the necessary required qualification.

¶17

The following qualifications were prescribed by the first respondent, as per the notification, dated 11.12.1998 :

¶18

(i) Degree of M.A., or M.Sc., or a First Class Degree of B.A., or B.Sc., with Statistics, Mathematics, Economics or Mathematical Economics as the main subject of any University or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grant; and

¶19

(ii) Experience in Statistical Investigation for a period not less than 3 years in the case of persons holding a Master's Degree and five years in the case of persons holding a Bachelor's Degree.

¶20

The details regarding equivalent qualification were also given in para 5 of the Commission's Instructions etc., issued to candidates.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he possessed the required qualification and also submitted his application for the said post. After the scrutiny of the certificates, the petitioner was permitted to attend the written examination, which had taken place on the 10^th and 11th of April 1999. The petitioner was informed as a successful candidates in the written examination and he was called upon to attend the interview. The petitioner has further stated that he performed well in the interview, however, the first respondent, published yet another notification for the post of filling up the post of Assistant Director of Statistics, for which specific notification was also issued by him on 07.02.2000. Based on the said notification also the petitioner submitted his application, for enabling him to get the post, by way of participating in the process of selection. In respect of notification, dated 11.12.1998, according to the petitioner, he could have been declared as a selected candidate, however, the first respondent issued an order, dated 23.02.2001, whereby the petitioner was informed that the application submitted, consequent to the notification, dated 07.02.2000 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not having the required qualification.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the relief sought for in this writ petition is in the nature of certiorarified mandamus, seeking an order to quash the impugned memo No.8655/OTD-C2/1998 issued by the second respondent and consequently direct the respondents to provide an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment to the petitioner in the post of Assistant Director of Statistics in Tamil Nadu Statistical Service.

¶23

¶24

It has been admitted in the counter that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had published the notification, dated 11.12.1988, whereby invited application for the direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director of Statistics in the Tamil Nadu Statistics service, 1999-2000.

¶25

The petitioner K.Anbukkarasi was one among the candidates, who had applied to the aforesaid post. In the application, she had stated that she got the required qualification of M.A., Degree in Economics and had been working in three organizations during the period from 01.06.1994 to 16.11.1998, vide Madura Needles Private Ltd., Trichy, Sellur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Madurai and Gandhigram Institute of Rural Health and Family Welfare Trust, Dindigul.

¶26

The first respondent has stated in the counter that so far as the required experience is concerned, the Public Service Commission had doubt to recognise the alleged experience of the petitioner and the certificate issued by private limited companies, hence, the Director of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu, who is the Head of the Department for the post of Assistant Director of Statistics, was addressed to clarify the required experience. However, the petitioner was admitted provisionally to the oral test, subject to the acceptance of the required experience possessed by the candidate. The first respondent has stated that the said fact was informed to the petitioner vide Memo.No.8655/OTDC2/1998, dated 25.08.2000 and the publication of her result was withheld for the above said reason. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Economics and Statistics in his Letter No.046484/E2/2000, dated 30.08.2000 has stated as follows :

¶27

"...I am to state that the experience gained by the candidate Selvi.K.Anbukarasi in Madurai Needles (P) Limited, Trichy, which is a private Textile company may not be so exacting as that required in the Department of Economics and Statistics."

¶28

In view of the letter, dated 30.08.2000, received from the Commissioner of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu, the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected, on the ground that she did not possess the required experience, as per the notification in para 4(ii), dated 11.12.1998 and the fact was also informed to the petitioner, vide Office Memo.No.101702/OTD-C2/1999-2000, dated 04.10.2000. Subsequently, the Public Service Commission, by its notification, dated 07.02.2000 invited applications for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director of Statistics, in the Tamil Nadu Statistics Service. The respondents have stated that for the second time also, the petitioner applied for the aforesaid post of Assistant Director of Statistics, which was rejected by Office Memo.No.6101/APDF/2000, dated 23.03.2001, on the same reason already given for the earlier application that the petitioner was not having the required experience.

¶29

Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.5494 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and sought permission to attend the written examination and the interview and in this regard, interim order had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed. The petitioner has stated that the first respondent again made a communication, dated 18.10.2001 stating that even in the case of the

¶30

¶31

request for appointment based on the notification, dated 07.12.1998, her request was negated on the very same reason. Hence, the petitioner was forced to approach the Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A.No.368 of 2002. However, the said application was dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred the writ petitions in W.P.No.20661 of 2003 and W.P.No.25754 of 2003.

¶32

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has got qualification of M.A., (Economics) on the date of her application, which is a required educational qualification, in addition to that, as per notification, dated 11.12.1998, being a Master Degree holder in Economics, the petitioner was expected to have experience in statistical investigation for a period, not less than 3 years, for which the petitioner had submitted only certificate issued by one Madura Needles Private Ltd., Trichy, a private concern. When it was referred by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to the Director of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu, vide its letter, dated 30.08.2000 in letter No.046484/E2/2000, to clarify whether the certificate obtained from the private textiles company could be the required qualification towards experience in statistical investigation for a period not less than three years. Only subject to the eligibility of the petitioner, in respect of her experience in the statistical investigation, she was permitted to attend the interview. It is submitted by the respondents that merely because the petitioner was permitted to attend the interview, she is not entitled to get the appointment. It cannot be said that the respondents have recognised the experience certificate produced by the petitioner, that was obtained from a private limited company. The second point raised is that all persons, who attended the interview could be selected, as there was selection process for the appointment.

¶33

In the instant case, by way of filing counter, the respondents have stated that the petitioner had obtained only 468.49 marks, out of which, 413.49 marks secured by her in main written examination and 55.00 marks in the oral test. It is further stated that the cut-off marks in respect of Backward Class (women) category, as per the Selection List was 524.98 and Reserve List was 492.29 marks. Therefore, the petitioner has not secured above the cut-off marks, for consideration of the appointment.

¶34

The respondents have stated that the petitioner had obtained less than the cut-off marks, hence, she was not selected, in addition to lack of required experience in statistical investigation, as prescribed in the notification. So far as the required qualification, as per the notification is concerned, it has to be decided whether the required experience in the statistical investigation for a period of not less than three years, includes the service in a private limited company or only the service rendered in the Government or the Government undertaking or any other public institution, is a question of fact, which cannot be agitated in a writ petition. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that a disputed question of fact cannot be agitated in a writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner was a qualified candidate, even by way of having the required experience of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ three years, she cannot claim it as a matter of right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Director of Statistics, unless she is selected for

¶36

¶37

the post. As it is a competitive examination, every one who attended the interview cannot claim to be appointed as Assistant Director, as a matter of right.

¶38

In the instant case, the respondents have categorically stated that though her result was withheld, after the direction given by this Court in the earlier writ petition, in W.P.No.20661 of 2003, the marks obtained by the petitioner was published. Accordingly, the petitioner has got 413.49 marks in the written examination and 55.00 marks in the oral test and totally, she had secured only 468.49 marks, which is less than the cut-off marks, required for selecting Backward Class candidate (women) category. As per the selection list, the required marks was 524.98 and reserve list was 492.29. The averments made in the writ petition that the respondents have not furnished proper details cannot be accepted, in view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

¶39

It being a writ petition, the burden is upon the petitioner to establish that she was entitled to be selected for the said post on merits for General or BC (women) category. It is not in dispute that persons, who got lesser marks could not be selected for the post. It is not the case of the petitioner, that any other candidate, who got lesser marks, than the petitioner was selected and appointed. Merely by saying that the petitioner got the required experience, she cannot claim as a matter of right to be appointed to the post of Assistant Director, as she has not obtained marks above the cut-off marks, sufficient in the category of Backward Class (women), than the selected candidates in the category.

¶40

On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit to allow the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶42

Tsvn

¶43

Sd/Assistant Registrar[Writs]

¶44

/True copy/

¶45

¶46

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶47

The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Commercial Tax Office Annex Building, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai

¶48

The Joint Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Commercial Tax Office Annex Building, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.

¶49

+1cc to Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Advocate SR.No.40651.

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5P/4C RPB 09.10.2013

¶51

Order in W.P.(MD).No.3862 of 2011 Dated:14.08.2013

K.Anbukkarasi, v. the Secretary , Tamil Nadu -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Anbukkarasi, v. the Secretary , Tamil Nadu -

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Abdul Hameed, Vs the District Collector

Susila Vs R.K.Kumar

Balakrishnan Vs R.Janaki

Janab T. Jaheer Hussain, Vs the Director

Kuppauru, Vs the District Collector

S. Saravanan, Vs the Secretary to Government