Dismissed

Rajaravindran, v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Sept 2019WP/9823/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL challenging the employment of an individual as a Hydro Geologist due to doubts about his qualifications, the court dismissed the petition. Relying on verification reports from the 5th respondent, the court held the petitioner targeted an individual without substance, finding the petition lacked merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajaravindran, Vs The District Collector — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 12.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶7

WP.No.9823/2018 & WMP.No.11750/2018

¶8

Mr.Rajaravindran .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Perambalur District.
2.The Director,
Rural Development Agency,
PanangalMaligai,
Chennai.
3.The Project Director,
District Rural Development Agency,
Permabalur District,
Perambalur.
4.The Block Development Officer(Panchayat),
Office of Assistant Director(Panchayat Administration),
Permablaur District.
5.The Registrar,
Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar,
Chindambaram.

¶9

6.R.Rajendiran .. Respondents Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 5 herein to verify the credential of the 6th respondent who claiming as Hydro Geologist for certifying the ground water sources by holding the post graduate decree of M.SC., Geology from the 5th Respondent herein by disposing the representation dt. 05/01/2018 and consequently, take appropriate

¶10

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

¶11

action against the 6th respondent herein.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Manoharan Sundaram For Respondents : Mr.B.Anand for RR1 to 4 Mr.M.R.Dharanichandran for R5 Mr.K.Sathishkumar for R6

¶13

ORDER

¶14

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]

¶15

(1) By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. This writ petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed by the petitioner who is having the qualification of M.Sc.(Information Technology) and since he could not get a job, decided to look after agricultural activities.

¶16

(2)The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that his native District, viz., Perambalur, is always a water starve District and in order to put up a bore well, the services of the sixth respondent have been engaged and according to the petitioner, he lacks necessary qualification and also suspected the bona fide of his qualification and therefore, sought an information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Annamalai University and it was denied on the ground that it was a personal information.

¶17

(3)The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed-set of documents and would submit that the alleged Degree Certificate said to have been issued by the Annamalai University, certifying that the 6^th respondent is having the qualification of M.Sc [Geology] itself is doubtful and it was also brought to the knowledge of that the first respondent, who vide communication dated 13.02.2018 in O.Mu.No.G2/755/2018 has instructed the Public Information Officer, the Block Development Officer(Admn), Asst Director (R/I) Office, Perambalur District to take for his reference and appropriate action and despite a lapse of nearly one year and odd, no action whatsoever, has been taken and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶18

(4)Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit as well as the typed set of documents dated 24.01.2019 and 05.07.2019 respectively and would submit that initially the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 05.10.2018 in Na.Ka.No.A3/101/2018 has suspended the services

¶19

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

¶20

of the 6^th respondent as a Geologist temporarily till the disposal of the writ petition and after causing verification through Annamalai University, in which he had undergone the Course and got the Certificate, issued the proceedings dated 02.07.2019 in Na.Ka.NoA3/101/2018 addressed to the 4^th respondent stating among other things that all the certificates pertain to the qualification of the 6^th respondent, are genuine and that apart, no interim orders have also been granted by this Court pending disposal of the writ petition and therefore, granted liberty to the 4^th respondent to engage the services of the 6^th respondent depending upon their requirement and the same is subject to the result of the writ petition.

¶21

(5)This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶22

(6)Though the petitioner who claims to be a Public Interest Litigant, is aggrieved by the engagement of the 6^th respondent as a Geologist to find out the water source, the fact remains that apart from the services of the 6^th respondent, the services of the other Geologists have also been engaged to locate the water sources and it appears that the petitioner is not aggrieved by the services of the others but only he is targeting the 6^th respondent on the ground that the qualification possessed by him, lack genuinely. The above cited communication of the 1^st respondent dated 02.07.2019 addressed to the 5^th respondent would disclose that the 6^th respondent is having necessary qualifications and permitted the 4^th respondent to engage his services as a Geologist subject to the result of the writ petition.

¶23

(7) In the considered opinion of the Court, the Public Interest Litigation cannot be used to target an individual, viz., the 6^th respondent, and in the light of the communication of the 1^st respondent dated 02.07.2019 addressed to the 4^th respondent, it cannot be said that the 6th respondent lacks necessary qualification and that the Certificates regarding his educational qualification also appear to be genuine. The writ petition lacks merits and substance and deserves dismissal.

¶24

(8) In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Asst.Registrar (Insp cell )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

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

¶31

To
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Perambalur District.
2.The Director,
Rural Development Agency,
PanangalMaligai, Chennai.
3.The Project Director,
District Rural Development Agency,
Permabalur District, Perambalur.
4.The Block Development Officer(Panchayat),
Office of Assistant Director(Panchayat Administration),
Permablaur District.
5.The Registrar,
Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar,
Chindambaram.
+1 cc to Mr.Mohana Sundaram Advocate sr79281
+1 cc to Mr.K.Sathish kumar Advocate sr78583
+1 cc to Government pleader sr78937
WP.No.9823/2018
nr(co)
aa18/10/2019

¶32

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

Rajaravindran, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajaravindran, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Deepashri Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Biju Kumar, Vs Secretary to Government

Sarojinidevi Vs The Union of India

P.Narayanasamy Vs the Chief Engineer

K.Sadasivam Vs The District Collector

S.Muthukumar Vs The Chief Secretary