Dismissed

R.Dhananchezhiyan v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Jun 2018WP/7700/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment for agricultural land losers in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The Court held that since the petitioners failed to submit applications before the fixed cut-off date and the recruitment process had concluded, no relief could be granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition dismissed.

R.Dhananchezhiyan Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 21-06-2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶2

W.P.No.7700 of 2014 And M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶3

1.R.Dhananchezhiyan
2.N.Narayanasamy
3.S.Balamurugan
4.S.Dandapani
5.S.Kumaresan
6.L.S.Devendran .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
3.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited,
Represented by its Manager-HR
Boiler Auxiliaries Plant,
Indira Gandhi Industrial Complex,
Ranipet-632 406,
Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶4

PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to consider the petitioners for employment in the available vacancies in the third respondent based on their education qualification and consequently direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioners permanently in the third respondent at Vellore District in accordance with their educational qualification or as unskilled labourers.

¶5

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

¶6

For Petitioners : Ms.Kavitha Deenadayalan For Respondents-1&2 : Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi, Special Government Pleader.

¶7

For Respondent-3 : Mr.John for M/s.Foxmandal Associates.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioners for employment in the available vacancies in the third respondent-Corporation based on their educational qualification and accordingly, direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioners on permanent basis in a sanctioned post.

¶10

The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, states that the writ petitioners are the agricultural land losers and the valuable lands belonging to the writ petitioners were acquired for the purpose of establishing Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited in Vellore District.

¶11

The fact regarding the acquisition of the lands belongs to the writ petitioners is not disputed by the respondents. Undoubtedly, a Committee was constituted for the purpose of considering these land losers for providing an appointment in the respondent-Corporation. The Screening Committee, so appointed, has fixed certain terms and conditions for providing appointments.

¶12

The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the third respondent, made a submission that a batch of writ petitions were filed in W.P.No.4113 of 1998 etc., and this Court passed an order on 13.5.2008, which reads as under:-

¶13

“43. Therefore, this Court hereby orders appointment of a Screening Committee comprising of the following persons:-

¶14

The District Revenue Officer (North Arcot District) - Convener

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet

¶16

The Tahsildar, Wallajah - Secretary

¶17

The Additional General Manager (HR&C), BHEL, Ranipet

¶18

The Deputy General Manager (Law), BHEL, Ranipet

¶19

The Manager (HR), BHEL, Ranipet

¶20

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

¶21

The meetings of the Screening Committee shall be convened by the District Revenue Officer and its Secretary will be the Tahsildar, Wallajah. If any difference of opinion crops up or any clarification is required, the same may be referred to the District Collector, North Arcot District for his consideration and opinion and be resolved accordingly.

¶22

The District Collector (North Arcot) is hereby directed to notify the constitution of the Screening Committee and also give adequate publicity to the land losers to appear before the Committee with necessary records. The Committee shall examine the claims of all the writ petitioners (excepting those cases which have been rejected by this Court) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to recommend to BHEL for grant of suitable appointments to the eligible land losers. Till the said exercise is completed, the respondent BHEL cannot proceed with any other appointment to the categories which the land losers are eligible. In case where some of the land oustees are not able to be given employment, the respondent BHEL shall also direct the contractors engaged by them, to employ those persons as was done by the directions approved in the Banwasi Seva Ashram's case (cited supra).

¶23

In the result, (a) The following writ petitions W.P. No. 27817 of 2005; and W.P. Nos. 10955, 11035, 11037, 11044, 11046, 11049, 11056, 11732, 27837, 27838 and 41184 of 2006 will stand dismissed.

¶24

(b) The following writ petitions which are of general nature will stand closed in the light of the directions already granted by this Court:-

¶25

W.P. Nos. 34838 and 41392 of 2005; and W.P. No. 27920 of 2007.

¶26

¶27

W.P. No. 4113 of 1998; W.P. No. 19761 of 1999; W.P. Nos. 25971 and 41541 of 2005; W.P. Nos. 524 to 527, 725, 7560, 10951 to

¶28

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

¶29

10954, 10956 to 10963, 11031 to 11034, 11036, 11038 to 11043, 11045, 11047, 11048, 11050 to 11055, 19765, 26133, 26134, 27829 to 27836, 41121, 42147, 42148, 43708, 46929, 47876 of 2006; and W.P. Nos. 4319, 28208 and 28209 of 2007 will stand disposed of in the light of the directions granted above. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. All connected Miscellaneous Petitions will stand closed.”

¶30

The Writ Appeal filed against this order was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the last date for submitting the applications, seeking employment was fixed as 23.9.2011. All the eligible land losers are permitted to submit their respective applications, seeking employment on or before 23.9.2011. The applications submitted were scrutinised by the Screening Committee and 124 candidates were appointed in the third respondent-Corporation. The Screening Committee appointed for the purpose of recommending the cases were also dissolved. Thus, the process of appointments in respect of these land losers ended in the year 2011 itself.

¶31

Admittedly, the writ petitioners had not submitted their applications before the cut off date i.e., on 23.9.2011. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners made a submission that the writ petitioners are residing in a remote village and they were not referring the fact that the last date fixed by the respondents for submission of applications. These factors cannot be considered, at this point of time, in view of the fact if any leniency or misplaced sympathy is shown in respect of the cut off date fixed for the purpose of submission of applications, then there will be large number of claims in this regard by the other land losers, who are all eligible and aspiring to secure employment.

¶32

Once the terms and conditions and the cut off date for submission of application is prescribed, then the authorities competent are bound by the same and the applications submitted thereafter, cannot be entertained at all. The writ petition itself was filed in the year 2014, after a lapse of three years from the date of completion of the process of appointment in respect of land losers category. Thus, the question of extending any leniency or otherwise in the case of the writ petitioners, does not arise at all.

¶33

The third respondent-Corporation is a State. Thus, all appointments are to be made only in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate and all the eligible

¶34

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

¶35

persons aspiring for public employments must be given opportunity to participate in the selection through open competition process.

¶36

Thus, the Special Schemes provided for appointments are to be restricted to the extent possible. Since such Special Schemes are curtailing the opportunities to all the eligible persons as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State or Union, cannot issue number of Special Schemes, so as to appoint the persons without following the Recruitment Rules in force and equal opportunity enshrined under the Constitution must be followed in its letter and spirit and scrupulously by the authorities competent.

¶37

This being the principles to be followed, this Court is of an opinion that the cut off date fixed by the respondents for submission of application was on 23.9.2011 and admittedly, the writ petitioners had not submitted their applications before the cut off date and there is no reason for this Court to interfere, at this point of time, for the purpose of granting the relief, as such, sought for in this writ petition.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Svn
To
1.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
Vellore.

¶40

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

¶41

2.The District Revenue Officer, Vellore District, Vellore.

¶42

+1cc to M/s.Foxmandal Associates, Advocate sr.no.39464 +1cc to Government Pleader in sr.no.39552

¶43

W.P.No.7700 of 2014

¶44

nr 28/06/2018

¶45

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

R.Dhananchezhiyan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Dhananchezhiyan v. the District Collector

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

D.Jesuvathy Sornalatha Vs the Director of Collegiate

V.Rammohan Vs The Commissioner of Municipal

G.Mohanakrishnan Vs the Chief Engineer

L.Dharmarajan Vs the District Revenue Officer

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Vs Union of India

K.Vijayakumar Vs the Chairman