Review application challenging a debut dismissal of a writ petition. The petitioner contended the court erred in recognizing the third respondent's educational qualification. The High Court held no error occurred and dismissed the review.
Review application (W) No.108 of 2016 was dismissed with costs.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 18-10-2016
Pronounced on: 16-11-2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN
Review Application (W) No.108 of 2016 W.P.No.23409 of 2013
M. Saravanan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
2
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1416 of 2010 dated 27-11-2012 and quash the same.
For petitioner : Mr.R. Rajesh Kumar
For respondents : R1 – Tribunal
Mr. J. Madhana Gopal Rao, SCSSC for R2 Mr. Karthick Mukundan for R3 Mr. A.L. Gandhimathi for R4 Mr. S. Rajendra Kumar for R5
O R D E R
This review application has been directed against the order dated 23-06-2016 passed in W.P.No.23409 of 2013 by this Court.
W.P.No.23409 of 2016 on the file of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed in O.A.No.1416 of 2010 dated 27-11-2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal and quash the same, wherein the present respondents have been arrayed as
3
respondent.
“a. The candidates must possess the educational qualification laid down in SRO 13E as amended by SRO 191 of 28-11-1994 and SRO 66 dated 27-05-2003 (Annexure-B)
b. For the post of Chargeman (T/Mech) a candidate must possess three years diploma or equivalent qualification certificate in respective field duly affiliated by AICTU and two years experience in the grade.
c. A candidate possessing the required qualification in terms of these SROs from an institute recognised by Govt. of
4
India are also eligible. A candidate must possess the required educational qualification on the last date of receipt of application may also apply. But he must produce the pass certificate / document on or before the date of written examination for selection.”
The petitioner has passed Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and placed at Serial No.6. Since five vacancies are available, up to Serial No.5 have been selected. The fifth candidate is none other than the third respondent herein. The third respondent has studied Diploma through Distance Education Course of Institution of Mechanical Engineering (India) Mumbai ('IME' in short), which is not under the approved list of AICTE. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed O.A. No.1416 of 2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal without considering the contentions put forth on the side of the petitioner has erroneously dismissed O.A.No.1416 of 2010 by way of passing the impugned order, dated 27-11-2012 and in order to quash the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
is averred that the petitioner has filed O.A.No.1416 of 2010 and thereby, challenged the appointment of third respondent. The first
5
respondent has dismissed O.A.No.1416 of 2010. Against the order passed by the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. The second respondent has conducted departmental competitive examination wherein the third respondent has been selected on merits. Before conducting the said examination, proper publication has been issued. The Diploma obtained by the third respondent has also been recognized by AICTE and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
6
petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
7
8
it has been specifically stated that the Courses run by IME have been recognized by AICTE.
“The main gravamen expressed on the side of the petitioner is that the third respondent has no locus-standi to participate in the examination and therefore, his selection as Charge man (T & M) is erroneous. It is an admitted fact that the third respondent has studied his Diploma course in the Institution mentioned in the petition. At this juncture, it would be apropos to look into the letter given by AICTE on 14-09-2010 and the same reads as follows:
“With reference to your RTI letter dated 13-9-2010 the information as per your requirement in serial order as follows:
9
good.
10
In fine, this review application is dismissed with costs.
(A.S.,J.) (P.K.,J) 16-11-2016
Index:Yes/No glp
11
A.SELVAM,J. AND P.KALAIYARASAN,J.
glp
Pre-delivery Order in Review Application (W) No.108 of 2016 W.P.No.23409 of 2013
16-11-2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing a writ petition challenges appointment eligibility justifies the review maintenance.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that the third respondent's diploma was recognized by AICTE based on counter-averments and an official letter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Saravanan
The Registrar CAT, Chennai Bench Chennai
Union of India
G. Mahesh Kumar
AICTE Southern Regional Office
Institute of Mechanical Engineer (India)
A. SELVAM
P. KALAIYARASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
