Petitioner sought writ of mandamus under Article 226 for appointment as Sweeper after not being selected in an interview. The Court held mere attendance does not create a legal right and dismissed the petition.
Direction to consider representation for appointment granted
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: 05.09.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.8350 of 2016
D.Hemalatha ... Petitioner
2.The Executive Officer,
Wallajabad Town Panchayat Office,
Wallajabad, Kanchipuram,
Tamilnadu.
3.The President,
Wallajabad Town Panchayat,
Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 22.01.2016 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders so as to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy notified by the Executive Officer of the Wallajabad Town Panchayat.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Raghavan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Perumal (For R1) Government Advocate Mr.N.Srinivasan (For R2)
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 22.01.2016.
representation submitted by the petitioner on 22.01.2016.
4.A mere participation in the process of selection will not confer any right on the writ petitioner to seek appointment. Attending the interview is a process and such a process cannot be a basis for filing this writ petition even to consider the representation.
5.On reading of representation submitted by the writ petitioner it is clear that the writ petitioner seeks appointment for the post of Sweeper in the office of the second respondent. Thus, this Court cannot issue any direction to consider the representation dated 22.01.2016 submitted by the writ petitioner in view of the fact that there is no legal right vested on the writ petitioner to seek any such claim for such appointment.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tkp/maya
To
1.The District Employment Officer, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu.
2.The Executive Officer, Wallajabad Town Panchayat Office, Wallajabad, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu.
3.The President, Wallajabad Town Panchayat, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu. +1cc to Mr.K.V.Sridharan, Advocate, S.R.No.64305 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.64512
W.P.No.8350 of 2016 SSI(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GN(12/10/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider a representation for appointment after the petitioner was not selected in an interview.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D.Hemalatha
The District Employment Officer, Kanchipuram
The Executive Officer, Wallajabad Town Panchayat Office
The President, Wallajabad Town Panchayat
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
