Petitioner challenged his non-selection for Village Assistant post, arguing entitlement based on differential ability. Court noted petitioner scored 46 marks versus 70 and 82 marks by response employees. Petition dismissed.
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.
W.P.No.8309 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.8309 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.8511, 8512 & 8515 of 2023
T. Sivan
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
1/4
PRAYER:
W.P.No.8309 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 6th respondent in letter No.Na.Ka.No.A15654 dated 23.12.2022 and the 4th respondent's proceeding No.Na.Ka.No.A3/4934/2022, dated 01.02.2023 and quash the same consequently direct the 4th respondent to call for the name of the petitioner from the 6th respondent and direct the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Village Assistant in Melnachipattu Village, Alathur Village or any vacant place in Mashar Village in Chengam Taluk.
For Petitioner : Mr.A. Sivaji
For Respondents : Mr.P. Gurunathan, Additional Government Pleader [R1 to R6] No Appearance [R7 & R8]
ORDER
The petitioner herein is aggrieved against the non-selection of his candidature for the post of Village Assistant.
2. When one vacancy was notified for the post of Village Assistant
in Melnachipattu Village, the same was under General GT priority Inter Caste Married couple as per roster point. The petitioner, as well as the respondents 7 & 8, had applied for the said post.
2/4
W.P.No.8309 of 2023
3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent herein, the
details of the marks secured by the petitioner, as well as the respondents 7 & 8, have been stated. While the petitioner had obtained 46 marks, the respondents 7 & 8 have secured 70 & 82 marks respectively. On this basis, the petitioner's candidature was rejected.
4. The claim of the petitioner that he is differently abled and therefore, he is entitled for being considered, also does not hold good since the selection process itself is one for General GT category. Since the petitioner was unsuccessful in the selection process, I do not find any
infirmity on the action taken by the respondents, in not including his name in the selection process.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.06.2023
Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No
Sni
3/4
W.P.No.8309 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH,J.
Sni
To
W.P.No.8309 of 2023
09.06.2023
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to selection for the post of Village Assistant despite lower marks than other candidates in the same category?
Whether the petitioner's claim of being differently abled overrides the selection process outcome for the General GT caste category?
T. Sivan
The Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department
The Additional Chief Secretary/ Commissioner of Revenue Administration
The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District
The Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk
The Revenue Divisional Officer
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
