This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's disqualification in a physical selection test. The Court held that technical judgments on performance cannot be interfered with absent apparent illegality or malice.
The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed with no costs.
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 : 06.02.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.2390 of 2020 and WMP No.2792 & 2793 of 2020
A.Senthilkumar .. Petitioner
.v.
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144-Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144-Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, Udumalpet Distribution Circle, Udumalpet. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus call for the records of Impugned disqualifying Physical test report vide number in VO439-Coimbatore-II dated 14.12.2019 on the file of 3rd respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents to conduct third activity to the petitioner in respect of notification number: 1/2019 dated 7.3.2019 on the file of 2nd respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Myilsamy For Respondents : Mr.G.R.Balakumar
1/4
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the disqualification of the petitioner in the physical test that was conducted by the respondents in the course of selection to the post of Gangman (trainee).
2.The 2nd respondent issued a Notification on 07.03.2019 and invited applications for recruitment to the post of Gangman (trainee). The selection involved both physical test and written test. The physical test in turn involved three activities to be completed by the candidates in a particular manner within a particular time. The petitioner completed the first activity correctly on time. However, when it came to the second activity, it was found that the petitioner did not perform the activity correctly and therefore, his candidature was rejected and consequently, the petitioner was not allowed to move on to the third activity. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had performed the second activity in a correct manner and within the time that was stipulated. However, the respondents went wrong in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner must be allowed to once again participate in the physical test and thereafter, the petitioner must be allowed to take the written examination.
4.In the considered view of this Court, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court. This is a selection process which involves performing of certain activity in a particular manner and within a particular time. While doing so, in the second activity, the authority had disqualified the petitioner with a remark "U clam fitted before Jampering not completed properly". This is highly a technical area where, this Court cannot come to any conclusion as to whether the reason given by the respondents for disqualification is correct or wrong. The respondents did not carry any particular ill will against the petitioner and the same standard is applied for all the participants. This Court cannot interfere with such decision taken by the concerned authority, unless this Court is able to find any apparent illegality in the process of rejection.
2/4
5.In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any ground to entertain this Writ Petition and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
KP
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144-Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer/Personnel,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
NPKRR Maaligai,
No.144-Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
Udumalpet Distribution Circle,
Udumalpet.
+1cc to Mr.K.Myilsamy, Advocate sr.10079
W.P.No.2390 of 2020
nrl(co)
nr 05/03/2020
3/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere with a technical disqualification in a selection process where the authority applied the standard uniformly to all participants without apparent illegality.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the rejection of candidature in the physical test deserves to be entertained.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Senthilkumar
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
