WA/1578/2003 of P.L.VALLIAMMAL Vs K.VARADARAJASN on 22 December 2006

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)

The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated 31.03.2003made in W.P.No.18197 of 1997, in and by which, the learned singleJudge, after quashing the appointment of fifth respondenttherein/appellant herein, has allowed the writ petition and directed thethird respondent therein viz., Joint Director, the Professional andExecutive Employment Exchange, R.K.Mutt Road, Chennai, to sponsor alleligible candidates to the fourth respondent school within 30 days fromthe date of communication of the said order, as per the employmentexchange seniority list, who are eligible and who possess eligiblequalifications and thereafter, the fourth respondent school shall hold afresh selection, select and appoint the suitable candidate on merits andin accordance with law.

2. The first respondent-writ petitioner, though was duly servednotice in the above appeal, has not chosen to contest the same by engaginga counsel.

3. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant-fifth respondent in the writ petition, submits that pursuant tothe selection, the appellant was continuing her service in the fifthrespondent school and even now, she continues in the same school.

4. Before going into the merits, it is relevant to note that the writpetitioner-first respondent herein filed the said writ petition seeking toissue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 therein to appointhim as Post Graduate Assistant (Economics) Teacher in S.M.S. HigherSecondary School, Keelasevalpatti, Tirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai Districtby following due process of law or by calling for names of personsregistered with the third respondent Exchange by following employmentexchange seniority list. The interest of the appellant/fifth respondenttherein was taken care of by the school viz., fourth respondent thereinand the learned counsel, who appeared for the school also represented thefifth respondent therein. Before the learned single Judge, the thirdrespondent therein has filed a counter affidavit highlighting their standand prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The learned single Judge, after considering the claim of bothparties, though the relief prayed for in the writ petition is onlyMandamus, on the oral request made by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, has quashed the orders of selection and appointment madeby the fourth respondent-school appointing the fifth respondent as P.G.Assistant and thereafter, directed the third respondent-the Professionaland Executive Employment Exchange, R.K.Mutt Road, Chennai, to sponsorcandidates as per the Employment Exchange seniority list and it is forthe fourth respondent-school to select one of them according to law andon merits.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing forthe appellant, even without filing a proper petition for amendment ofthe relief prayed for, the learned single Judge has quashed the selectionand appointment of the fifth respondent therein/appellant herein. It isalso his grievance that since her interest was taken care of by the schoolmanagement, she was not afforded adequate opportunity to put forth herobjection in the course adopted by the learned single Judge.

7. On going through the relief prayed for in the writ petition andthe stand taken by the fifth respondent therein, we are of the view thatthe learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition.

8. It is brought to our notice that after the appointment of theappellant, the third respondent herein-the District Educational Officer,Devakottai, has approved her appointment during the pendency of the writpetition. It is also highlighted that the major requirement of the fifthrespondent School, before selecting a candidate for appointment, is tonotify to the employment exchange calling for the names and the samehaving been followed in the instant case and selected the appellant, thereis no illegality or irregularity committed by the management inappointing her. In those circumstances, it is contended that the learnedsingle Judge ought not to have set aside the appointment of the appellanteven without a prayer for setting aside the appointment.

9. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the officialrespondents has also brought to our notice the stand that was taken beforethe learned single Judge. In the counter affidavit filed before thelearned single Judge, the Assistant Director, Professional and ExecutiveEmployment Exchange, R.K.Mutt Road, Chennai, has stated that the schoolmanagement requested the Professional and Executive Employment Exchangeto sponsor candidates for appointment as Post Graduate Assistant(Economics). The school also requested them to forward the names ofsuitable women candidates only. It is further stated that as per thesaid requirement, the Employment Exchange sent a list of 20 womencandidates including the fifth respondent therein. Inasmuch as, onlywomen candidates had to be sponsored, as requested by the school-management, the name of the writ petitioner was not included in the list.

It is also brought to our notice that the name of the writ petitioner wassponsored against the post of "Team Member" to the Special Secretary toGovernment, Agricultural Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9, in1995. But he was not selected for appointment. In 1997, the fifthrespondent herein has notified the vacancy in the post of Post GraduateAssistant(Economics) as having been reserved for open competition womencategory to the fourth respondent-Employment Exchange. In thosecircumstances, the fourth respondent herein sent a list of 20 womencandidates belonging to Sivagangai District. The third respondent hasclaimed that the action of the fourth respondent-Exchange in nominatingthe candidates belonging to Sivagangai District is in order according tothe departmental instructions issued in the State Employment Exchangecircular Memo No.19/85. They further reported that since the vacancy wasreserved for women and the writ petitioner-first respondent hereinbelongs to Trichy District, he was not considered for nomination formaking appointment in the said school.

10. Considering the information furnished by the Assistant Director,the Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, R.K.Mutt Road,Chennai, and the stand taken by the fifth respondent before the learnedsingle Judge, we accept the objection raised by the learned Senior Counselfor the appellant. As rightly pointed out, in view of the fact that theaction taken by the Employment Exchange cannot be faulted with,particularly, the request made by the school management, we are of theopinion that in view of the relief prayed, the learned single Judge oughtto have dismissed the writ petition.

11. In these circumstances, the order of the learned single Judgedated 31.03.2003 made in W.P.No.18197 of 1997 is set aside and the writappeal is allowed. No cost. Consequently, WAMP No.2115 of 2003 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/

raa

Sub Asst.Registrar

To

1. Director of Higher Secondary School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

2. The District Educational Officer, Devakottai. Devakottai.

3. The Joint Director,

The Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, Employment Exchange, R.K.Mutt Road, Chennai.

1 cc To Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi, Advocate, SR.64875.

1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.65086.

W.A.No.1578 of 2003

AKM(CO)RVL 05.01.2007