Disposed

S. Kumar v. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Madras HC27 Jan 2020WP(MD)/797/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner in a recruitment process. Upon learning that respondents intended to re-verify technical qualifications, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to undergo the subsequent verification process and file a fresh petition if aggrieved, taking no final order on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed with liberty to undergo subsequent verification and file a fresh writ petition if aggrieved. No costs.

S. Kumar Vs the Tamil Nadu Public Service… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.797 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶4

W.P(MD)No.797 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD).No.573 of 2020

¶5

S.Kumaar .. Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep., by its Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai 600 003.

¶8

2.The Controller of Examination, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Fazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Chennai 600 003.

¶9

3.The Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai 600 005. .. Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to forthwith include the name of the petitioner in the selection list to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II (Post Code: 2119) published in the first respondent's website on 15.07.2019 in the Tamil Nadu Transport Sub-ordinate service 20132018 conducted by the first respondent in pursuance of notification No.3/2018 dated 14.02.2018 issued by the first respondent.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman (for R1 & R2)

¶12

Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader (for R3)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P(MD)No.797 of 2020

¶18

2.This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to forthwith include the name of the petitioner in the selection list to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II (Post Code: 2119) published in the first respondent's website on 15.07.2019 in the Tamil Nadu Transport Sub-ordinate Service 2013-2018 conducted by the first respondent in pursuance of Notification No.3/2018, dated 14.02.2018 issued by the first respondent.

¶19

3.In consequence to the verification of the technical experience, the petitioner herein was originally found to be not possessing the required workshop experience. Subsequently, when a revised workshop experience report was given by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, dated 10.12.2019, it was found that the workshop experience of the petitioner was certified to be valid and acceptable for consideration to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II. In view of this revised inspection report, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be considered for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II and as such, he has filed this present writ petition.

¶20

4.Today, when the matter was called, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that when similar matters came up for consideration before the Principal Bench of this Court, a submission was made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department that the earlier verification of technical qualifications adopted in the selection process was contemplated to be given up and they intend to re-do the verification process, insofar as it relates to technical qualifications. The petitioner herein apparently claims that the verification process done by the respondents earlier is not in accordance with the revised report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Now that the respondents intend to redo the verification of technical experiences, the petitioner's technical qualification, as found to be approved by the Motor Vehicle Inspector in the revised report dated 10.12.2019, may stand to his benefit. As such, no effective orders can be passed in the present writ petition, since the entire process of technical verification is to be re-done.

¶21

5.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has also filed a memo before this Court evidencing the procedure to be adopted for such technical verification and the learned Standing Counsel would also reiterate the submission made before the Principal Bench of this Court for re-doing the entire process of verification of technical experience of the candidates.

¶22

6.In the light of the above submissions and observations, the Writ Petition stands closed with liberty to the petitioner to subject himself to the subsequent verification, which is proposed to be done by the respondents. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ against the subsequent verification of the technical qualification,

¶23

2/3

¶24

W.P(MD)No.797 of 2020

¶25

liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court by filing a fresh writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

rmk

¶30

To:1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai 600 003. 2.The Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Ezhilagam, Chennai 600 005. +1 CC to M/s.D.SIVARAMAN, Advocate ( SR-3449[F] dated 28/01/2020 )

¶31

W.P(MD)No.797 of 2020 27.01.2020

¶32

JMN(28.01.2020) 3P : 4C

¶33

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

¶34

3/3

S. Kumar v. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Kumar v. the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

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

C.Baluchamy Vs Ilangavan

N.Nagarajan Vs S.Siva Shanmugaraja

M.Thirumaran Vs the Managing Director

R.Neethirajan Vs the Managing Director

V. Berkmans Vs the Registrar

Dr. Maniysundar Vs the Director