Writ petition under Article 226 sought mandamus to appoint petitioner to post of Helper by mandating interview in Feb 2009 or another date. Court dismissed petition holding it futile to order interview after such prolonged delay.
Writ petition dismissed; request to conduct 2009 interview rejected as no order could be made after such lapse of time.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.2749 of 2009 And M.P.No.1 of 2009
A.K.Arunachalam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
3. The Chief Engineer,
(Regional)
Villupuram Electricity System,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Villupuram.
4. The District Employment Officer,
Employment Exchange,
Tiruvannamalai. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's name for selection and appointment to the post of Helper by permitting him to appear for interview any one day of date from 10-2-2009 to 13-2-2009 or on any other date that may be fixed by the Hon'ble High Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja for Mr.R.Venkatraman For Respondents : Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's name for selection and appointment to the post of Helper by permitting him to appear for interview any one day of date from 10.02.2009 to 13.02.2009 or on any other date that may be fixed by this Court.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he is having the ITI Course certificate in Electrical group in the year 1998. He also underwent apprenticeship in the year April, 2002. He had registered his name in the Employment Exchange on 04.12.1998. Whileso, for appointment to the post of Wireman at the respondent Board, he was called for interview scheduled to be held on 13.02.2006 and he appeared on that date. However, the selection was not further processed by the respondent Board.
3.Without processing the said selection pursuant to the interview where the petitioner attended, the Board subsequently issued paper information that they are going to make all appointment by notifying the vacancy through the Employment Exchange. Inspite of the said information having been published in the paper by the fourth respondent that they are going to get the candidates from the Employment Exchange and the petitioner also had registered his name in the Employment Exchange, he was not called for interview. However, the Board had invited candidates who were similarly placed like the petitioner and an interview was fixed on 10.02.2009 to 13.02.2009. When the petitioner approached the respondents, no proper reason was given to the petitioner for not having called the petitioner for interview. Only in that circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
4.Heard the learned representing counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5.Since the very prayer of Mandamus as has been sought for is to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview to be conducted between 10.02.2009 to 13.02.2009 or for any other subsequent date and the scheduled interview date admittedly had been fixed in February, 2009 and for the said interview since the petitioner sought for a prayer for permitting him to attend, this Court is of the considered view that at this length of time, no Mandamus can be issued to permit the petitioner to attend the interview which was scheduled to be conducted in the year 2009. Also, this Court is of the view that for the recruitment undertaken in the year 2009, the respondent cannot be expected to conduct the said interview in the year 2017. Therefore, for all these reasons, the prayer sought for in this
writ petition cannot be granted, at this juncture and in view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, is also closed.
Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
800, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 2.
3. The Chief Engineer,
(Regional)
Villupuram Electricity System,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Villupuram.
4. The District Employment Officer,
Employment Exchange,
Tiruvannamalai.
+1cc to M/S.K.S. Karthik Raja, Advocate Sr. 16987
+1cc to Mr.M. Fakkir Mohideen, Advocate SR. 17102
W.P.No.2749 of 2009
And
M.P.No.1 of 2009
KGK(CO) VR(05/04/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to permit the petitioner to participate in an interview scheduled in 2009 when the current date is 2017.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.K. Arunachalam
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
The District Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Tiruvannamalai
R.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
