T.Senthil Murugan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.09.2007 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.611 OF 2006ANDW.P.M.P.NO.2211 OF 2007T.Senthil Murugan.. PetitionerVs.1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.3.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4... RespondentsThis writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarifiedmandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in letterNo.C.No.D1/2704/2001, dated 8.12.2005 and to quash the same andconsequently direct the second and third respondents to consider thepetitioner's name for selection and appointment to the category of SubInspector of Police meant for direct recruitment under BC quota for theyear 1997 with due seniority. For Petitioner : Mr.P.I.ThirumoorthyFor Respondents: Mr.V.Arun, AGP ORDERInvoking the writ jurisdiction of this court, the petitioner hasbrought forth this petition seeking for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent inletter No.C.No.D1/2704/2001, dated 8.12.2005 and consequently, direct thesecond and third respondents to consider the petitioner's name forselection and appointment to the category of Sub Inspector of Police meantfor direct recruitment under BC quota for the year 1997 with due seniority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The affidavit filed in support of the petition and the counteraffidavit are perused. The materials available are also looked into. Thecourt heard the learned counsel on either side. 3.Concededly, the petitioner applied for the Sub Inspector selectionfor the year 1997-98 under open competition B.C. quota. There were threestages in that selection, namely physical test, written test and oralinterview. Out of the same, he passed the first test. Though he appearedfor the second test, namely written test, the results were not made known.Despite the representations made, he was not selected. The petitionerapproached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2424 of 2002and it was transferred to this court. There was a direction given by thiscourt on 25.2.2005, directing the second respondent to call the petitionerfor oral interview, which was to be held on 14.10.2005. Accordingly, thepetitioner appeared. He has also made a representation along with thecertificates, dated 21.11.2005. A communication was received by him thathe was not selected and thus, the representation was rejected and underthese circumstances, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petitionbefore this court.4.The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that he applied for Sub Inspector selection for the year1997-98; that he has also appeared for the tests; that originally, hepassed the physical test; that the result of the written test remainsunknown for a long time; that he filed a writ petition, where there was adirection given by this court that he should be called for interview to beheld on 14.10.2005 and he appeared so; that along with a communication,dated 21.11.2005, he made all certificates available; that so far asinterview was concerned, 15 marks are to be allotted; that out of thesame, 10 marks are for viva voce and the rest of the marks are forextracurricular activities; that he was informed that he has not securedany marks so far as extracurricular activities are concerned, since thecertificates in this regard were not produced; that it is not correct onthe part of the department to say so; that the certificates produced bythe petitioner were not considered by the department and under thesecircumstances, had it been considered, he would have obtained necessarymarks to be selected; that the representation made was also not properlyconsidered; that the reply would clearly indicate that even thecertificates produced by the petitioner in respect of extracurricularactivities were not considered and under these circumstances, the order ofthe second respondent has got to be set aside and necessary directionshave got to be given. 5.The learned counsel for the respondents, in short, would submitthat even as per the order of this court, an interview was conducted on14.10.2005; that when the petitioner appeared for the interview, nocertificate was placed before the authority, but he appeared for vivavoce; that out of 10 marks, he secured 6.5 marks; that in respect ofextracurricular activities, no marks were given, in view of the nonproduction of any certificate; that the non production of the certificateswould be clear from the subsequent communication addressed by thepetitioner on 21.11.2005, where he has referred to the fact that allcertificates were annexed therein and thus, it would be quite clear thatat the time of interview, he did not produce any certificates at all; thathaving failed to bring necessary certificates at the time of interviewheld on 14.10.2005, the petitioner cannot now come forward to complain the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ department that he has not been selected and hence, the writ petition doesnot carry any merit whatsoever and it has got to be dismissed.6.After careful consideration of the submissions made, the court isof the considered opinion that this writ petition does not carry any meritwhatsoever. It is not in controversy that he passed the first test andsubsequently, insofar as the second test, the results were not made known.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner approached the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal and the petition was transferred to this court. Itis true, there was a direction given by this court, directing the secondrespondent to call the petitioner for interview, which was scheduled totake place on 14.10.2005. From the materials available, it would be quiteclear that in that interview, totally 15 marks were to be given, out ofwhich, 10 marks were allotted to viva voce and the rest of the marks, i.e.5 marks, were allotted to extracurricular activities. A communicationaddressed to the petitioner, which is under challenge, would clearlyindicate that he secured 6.5 marks for viva voce, out of 10 marks, but nomarks were given insofar as extracurricular activities for the reason thathe did not produce any certificates at all. The non production of thecertificates in respect of extracurricular activities of the petitionerwould be quite clear from the communication addressed by the petitioner on21.11.2005. Thus, there was no opportunity for the department to gothrough the certificates. 7.Now, the petitioner's contention that those certificates were notmade available on 14.10.2005 and subsequently, they were sent on21.11.2005 along with a communication and the department should haveconsidered the same, cannot be countenanced at all for the reasons thatthere was a direction given by this court to the respondents to call thepetitioner for interview to be held on 14.10.2005. Accordingly, thepetitioner was also called and he has also appeared for the interview, buthe has not produced the certificates at all. Having failed to produce thecertificate at the time of interview, now, the petitioner cannot bepermitted to say that those certificates were sent and hence, a duty wascast upon the department to consider the same. Thus, the production ofcertificate was out of time. Now, the grievance of the petitioner cannotbe ventilated for the reason that he was called for interview, pursuant tothe order of this court and he appeared for the interview on 14.10.2005,but he has not produced the certificates. Having failed to produce thesame, now the petitioner cannot be permitted to ventilate his grievanceafter a lapse of time. Hence, the writ petition does not carry any merit.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, theconnected WPMP is also dismissed.vvkSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.3.The Director General of Police, Chennai-4.+1 cc to Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy, Advocate Sr.No.60696.+1 cc to The Government Pleader Sr.No.60750.AD(CO)dcp/4.10W.P.NO.611 OF 2006