Dismissed¶49

Mr.S.Kumaresan v. State Rep by

Madras HC24 Jan 2025WP/25055/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.25055 of 2012; M.P.No.1 of 2012; Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.; 24.01.2025; Village Assistant post; Chengam Taluk; Tahsildar; proceedings Na.Ka.A3/00907/2012; Employment Exchange non-sponsorship; requisition; interviews 04.06.2012 and 31.07.2012; counter-affidavit Paragraph 13; mandatory qualifications; no re-joinder; post already filled; selected candidates not impleaded; Article 226; certiorarified mandamus; writ petition dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

This court does not find any reason to entertain the writ petition on the ground of non-sponsoring of the petitioner's name by the Employment Exchange for the post of Village Assistant. ¶37

Mr.S.Kumaresan Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition claiming the post of Village Assistant can be entertained on the ground that the Employment Exchange did not sponsor the petitioner's name for the interviews held on 31.07.2012 pursuant to the requisition by Respondent No.5. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

This court does not find any reason to entertain the writ petition on the ground of non-sponsoring of the petitioner's name by the Employment Exchange for the post of Village Assistant.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming that the Employment Exchange committed a mistake in not sponsoring the petitioner's name for the post of Village Assistant, it would make no difference, as the petitioner was stated to be not possessing the required qualification for the post.

¶35

Key takeaways

The post of Village Assistant claimed by the petitioner was already filled in by appointing other eligible candidates, and no challenge was made to such selection and appointment.ratio¶39
The selected candidates who were appointed to the post were not made parties to the present writ petition.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226 - certiorarified mandamus) challenging proceedings Na.Ka.A3/00907/2012 of the Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk (fifth respondent) conducting two interviews on 04.06.2012 and 31.07.2012 for the post of Village Assistant, and seeking appointment of the petitioner - DISMISSED. Grounds: (i) the petitioner's grievance was non-sponsorship of his name by the Employment Exchange for the 31.07.2012 interviews, but the fifth respondent's 2013 counter-affidavit (Paragraph 13) showed the petitioner was in fact interviewed on 04.06.2012 and rejected as not possessing the required mandatory qualifications, and no re-joinder was filed; (ii) even assuming a mistake in non-sponsorship, it would make no difference given the want of qualification; (iii) the post stood already filled by other eligible candidates whose selection and appointment went unchallenged and who were not impleaded. Held: no reason to entertain the writ petition; dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. (Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J., 24.01.2025)

¶1

W.P.No.25055 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 24.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.25055 of 2012 and

M.P.No.1 of 2012

Mr.S.Kumaresan

... Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by

The Commissioner of Revenue, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶13

The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶14

The District Employment Office, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶16

The Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the fifth respondent vidxe Na.Ka.A3/00907/2012 for the post of Village Assistant, Chengam Taluk by way of which two interviews were conducted on 04.06.2012and 31.07.2012 and quash the same

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.No.25055 of 2012

¶21

and direct the fifth respondent and appoint this petitioner for the post of Village Assistant.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Balamurugan For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan, Additional Government Pleader

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for the post of

¶25

'Village Assistant'.

¶26

The main contention of the petitioner is that the his name was not sponsored for the said post in response to the requisition made by the Respondent No.5 and without sponsoring the name of the petitioner,

¶27

interviews were conducted on 31.07.2012 for the post of 'Village Assistant'.

¶28

The Respondent No.5 filed a counter-affidavit as early as in the year 2013, specifically stating in Paragraph No.13 of the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner was called for interview for the same post on 04.06.2012 and he was found to be not possessing the required mandatory qualifications for the

¶29

post of 'Village Assistant' and therefore, he was not selected.

¶30

No reply or re-joinder affidavit is filed in response of the said

¶31

Page 2 of 5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.25055 of 2012

¶34

averment made in the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 in Paragraph No.13.

¶35

If that be the case, the question of sponsoring the name of the petitioner by the Employment Exchange once again for the interviews that were held on 31.07.2012 for the same post does not arise. Even assuming that the Employment Exchange has committed mistake in not sponsoring the name of the petitioner for the post of 'Village Assistant', the same would not make any difference, as the petitioner was stated to be not possessing the required qualification for the post of 'Village Assistant'.

¶36

In the circumstances, this court does not find any reason to entertain

¶37

this writ petition on the ground of non-sponsoring the name of the petitioner for the post of 'Village Assistant'.

¶38

Further, it is also noticed from the material on record and the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, the post of 'Village Assistant',

¶39

for which the petitioner is making a claim was already filled in by appointing other eligible candidates and no challenge is made to such selection and

¶40

Page 3 of 5

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.25055 of 2012

¶43

appointment and the selected candidates were also not made parties to the

¶44

present writ petition.

¶45

Page 4 of 5