Dismissed¶29

S.Saravanan v. The Chairman

Madras HC10 Feb 2026WP/17287/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TANGEDCO recruitment; Technical Assistant (Electrical); notification dated 28.02.2016 (No. 01/2016); final selection list dated 04.04.2019; MBC/Differentially Abled category cut-off 32.63 marks versus petitioner's 22.72 marks (16.5 written + 6 interview); comparison with candidates of lesser marks in Backward Category impermissible; non-joinder of selected candidates as parties; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226 dismissed as devoid of merits; no costs; Madras High Court; W.P No.17287 of 2019; WMP.No.16821 of 2019.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶29

S.Saravanan Vs The Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P No.17287 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P No. 17287 of 2019

¶7

and WMP.No. 16821 of 2019

S.Saravanan

..Petitioner

1.The Chairman TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mount Road, Chennai.

¶12

2.The Chief Engineer (Personal) TANGECO Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Mount Road, Chennai.

¶13

..Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent for seeking direction to modify the final result notice dated 04.04.2019 and to consider candidature under physically handicapped category against one post reserved for physically category candidate and in accordance with law and provide appointment on the category of the post of Electrical Assistant post kept reserved for the physically handicapped in the notification No. 01/2016, dated 28.02.2016 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. C.B.Muralikrishnan For Respondents : Mr.R.Nikhilesh Athav For Mr.K.Rajkumar, Standing Counsel

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

W.P No.17287 of 2019

¶20

The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to direct the second respondent to modify the final selection list dated 04.04.2019. The said final list pertains to selection to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical). In the said list, the name of the petitioner has not been included.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for selection to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical), the second respondent issued the final selection list in which candidates who had secured lesser marks were included, thereby depriving the petitioner of his right to appointment to the said post. It is therefore contended that the same is arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set aside.

¶22

Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) under the MBC/Differentially Abled category. In the said category, the last selected candidate had secured 32.63 marks in total, whereas the petitioner had secured only 22.72 marks. Therefore, the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the final selection list is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.

¶23

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

W.P No.17287 of 2019

¶27

Pursuant to the notification dated 28.02.2016 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical), the petitioner submitted his application seeking consideration under the MBC/Differentially Abled category. The petitioner was issued a hall ticket to appear for the competitive written examination, in which he secured 16.5 marks. Thereafter, he was called for an interview, in which he secured 6 marks. Thus, in total, the petitioner obtained 22.72 marks.

¶28

The final selection list reveals that the last candidate selected under the MBC/Differentially Abled category had obtained 32.63 marks. The petitioner contended that three other candidates who had secured lesser marks were selected; however, those candidates were considered under a different category, namely the Backward Category. Further, the petitioner has not arrayed the said candidates as parties to the present writ petition. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-selection, by citing the said three candidates, is not legally sustainable and cannot be accepted.

¶29