Dismissed

Anaithidiya Samuthaya Makkal v. Union of India

Madras HC8 Nov 2016WP(MD)/23151/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition filed by a political party challenging a recruitment selection was dismissed by the Madras High Court on maintainability grounds. The court held that selected candidates must be impleaded and the challenge should have been brought by an aggrieved candidate, not a political party.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought in the writ petition was denied on grounds of non-maintainability.

Anaithidiya Samuthaya Makkal Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.11 .2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.23151 of 2015

¶7

ANAITHINDIYA SAMUTHAYA MAKKAL KATCHI REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT K.V.RAJAPPA 80 KULANTHAI VELAN LANE MAIN ROAD DINDIGUL-624 001. .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CULTURE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 503 C WING SHASTRIBHAWAN NEW DELHI-15.

¶10

2 CHAIRMAN UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SHAHJAHAN ROAD NEW DELHI-69.

¶11

3 DIRECTOR GENERAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA ASI HEAD QUARTERS JANPATH NEW DELHI-11. .. Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Notice of Result dated 26.08.2015 in advertisement bearing Advt. No. 7/2010 Item No.3 vide Reference No.F.1/44/2010-R-IV published on 10.4.2010 for recruitment of 24 Posts of Deputy Superintending Archaeologists in the Archaeological Survey India Ministry of Culture and quash the same as illegal and subsequently direct them to conduct recruitment afresh by following reservation policy.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy for MR.V.RAJIV RUFUS For Respondents : Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri for R1 to R3

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J. )

¶18

The petitioner is a registered Regional Political Party known as Anaithindiya Samuthaya Makkal Katchi. It is represented by Mr.K.V.Rajappa. This petition has been filed as a public interest litigation challenging the employment notice issued by the 2^nd respondent in Advertisement No.7/2010 (Item No.3) for recruiting 24 candidates for the post of Deputy Superintending Archaeologists in Archaeological Survey India, Ministry of Culture and the consequential list published on 26.08.2015.

¶19

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶20

The Advertisement in question was issued on 10.4.2010. Recruitment Test was held by the Union Public Service Commission on 06.03.2011. On the basis of the Recruitment Test, the commission shortlisted the candidates and published the roll numbers of the candidates, who were selected for interview, provisionally. Thereafter, the interview was held and final results were published on 15.11.2011. The said selection is challenged in this writ petition.

¶21

According to the petitioner, as per the official memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training dated 13.02.2014, wherever a selection committee/Board exists or has to be constituted for making recruitment to 10 or more vacancies in any level of posts or services, it shall be mandatory to have one member belonging to SC/ST, one Member belonging to OBC Category and one member belonging to Minority Community in such Committees/Boards. Further, one of the members of the Selection Committee/Board, whether from the general category or from the minority community or from the SC/ST/OBC community should be a lady, failing which, a lady member should be co-opted on the Committee/Board. It may also be ensured that where the number of vacancies against which selection is to be made is less than ten, no effort should be spared in finding the SC/ST, OBC Officer and the Minority Committee officer and a lady officer, for inclusion in such Committees/Boards.

¶22

Referring to the said office memorandum, the petitioner would contend that in the instant case, the interview committee was not constituted in accordance with the said memorandum and instead, all the members in the interview committee belong to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Forward Community. Accordingly, constitution of the committee and the selection made by them are illegal and consequentially the selection made is also illegal.

¶23

¶24

It is also contended that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishnu Biswas & Others v. Union of India & Others in Civil Appeal Nos.4255 – 58 of 2014 , the maximum mark that should be awarded for interview shall not exceed 50% of the total marks and in this case, it has been fixed as 50%. For these reasons, according to the petitioner, the selection should be cancelled.

¶25

In our considered view, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on many grounds:

¶26

(i) First of all, the selected candidates, who have got the benefit of joining the duty, have not been impleaded as parties. Without hearing them, it may not be proper or legal for us to interfere with the selection made.

¶27

(ii) Secondly, the petitioner was not a candidate in the selection. It is a registered political party. In a matter of selection, it is for the aggrieved candidate, who did not get selection, to approach the Court or any other competent forum for relief. A political party cannot challenge the selection on the ground raised in this petition, more particularly, on the ground that for some of the candidates, who appeared well in the written examination wantonly lesser interview marks have been awarded by the committee. At any rate, in the selection process in this case commenced in the year 2010. Recruitment Test was held on 06.03.2011. Candidates shortlisted for interview was published on 15.11.2011 and the interview was held on 03.08.2015 to 07.08.2015. Thereafter, only, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

¶28

For these reasons, in our considered view, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. It is for the unsuccessful candidates to work out their remedy before the appropriate forum. It is also brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that some of the unsuccessful candidates have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is for them to work out their remedy there. We are inclined to clarify that we have not gone into the issues raised in the writ petition, as we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition only on technical grounds of maintainability. All these grounds made in this petition are left open. Except making an observation that the official memorandum of the Central Government should be given effect to scrupulously, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought for in this writ petition. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(Crl.side)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ /True Copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

To
1	UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF CULTURE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
	503 C WING SHASTRIBHAWAN NEW DELHI-15.
2	CHAIRMAN
	UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SHAHJAHAN ROAD NEW DELHI-69.
3	DIRECTOR GENERAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA ASI HEAD QUARTERS JANPATH NEW DELHI-11.
+1	cc to MR.V.RAJIV RUFUS, Advocate SR.No.66674
	ORDER MADE IN
	W.P(MD)No.23151 of 2015
	08.11.2016
CSL	/CK/23.11.2016:4P/5C

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Anaithidiya Samuthaya Makkal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anaithidiya Samuthaya Makkal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Martin Joseph, Vs the District Collector

Ammasi Vs the Inspector of Police

Sooramuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

Arunmozhi Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Lakshmi Vs the Commissioner of Police

S. Mahalakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police