P.Tamilselvi v. 2. The District Employment Officer

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 11.01.2007Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARWrit Petition No.5480 of 2002P.Tamilselvi..Petitioner..vs..1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri.3. Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd (K.K.349), Dharmapuri-636 701 rep.by its Special Officer...RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the recordspertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent inNa.Ka.No.1408/2001 May(Ni) dt.5.12.2001, quash the same andconsequently direct the respondents to forthwith provide employment tothe petitioner as Assistant in 3rd respondent Bank in terms of 1strespondent's letter No.30561/CC-1/98-1 dated 20.5.99.For Petitioner : Mr.D.HariparanthamanFor Respondents : Mr.K.Elango, Spl.G.P., for R1 & R2 Mrs.Bhavani Subbarayan, Govt.Advocate for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.,)Aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 05.12.2001, thepetitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same andconsequently direct the respondents to forthwith provide employment tothe petitioner as Assistant in 3rd respondent bank in terms of 1strespondent's letter dated 20.05.1999.2. According to the petitioner, she passed B.Sc. degreeexaminations on 27.11.1990 and also obtained Diploma in Co-operationon 10.12.1991. She belongs to Backward community. Then, sheregistered her name in the District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri,2nd respondent herein. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent, in its letterdated 29.08.1998 requested the Registrar of Co-operative societies tostop all recruitment process for appointment of staff, by directrecruitment, in Primary, Central and Apex Co-operative Institutions.Later, by letter dated 20.05.1999, the 1st respondent informed theRegistrar of Co-operative Societies that the ban on recruitment islifted and requested to follow certain norms for recruitment. As perthe said norms, the recruitment of staff should be in accordance withthe approved cadre strength fixed for each institution and 85% of thevacancies should be filled up by following the seniority listmaintained by the concerned District Employment Exchange and 15% ofvacancies from the employees of the society concerned based on theirseniority. The 1st respondent also made it clear that the rulesrelating to age and educational qualifications as well as the rule ofreservation should be strictly followed.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequent tothe above instructions, the 3rd respondent herein called for a list ofeligible candidates from the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent alsosponsored 69 candidates, by a list dated 09.01.2001. According to thepetitioner, her name was also found as Serial No.10 in the list ofbackward class women candidates. The 2nd respondent herein by letterdated 04.04.2001 informed the petitioner that her name was sponsored,but she did not appear for the interview conducted by the 3rdrespondent, and directed the petitioner to explain whether she isreally interested in taking up the employment. The 2nd respondent inthe same letter directed the petitioner to appear before the DistrictEmployment Officer at 11.00 a.m. without specifying any date.According to the petitioner, the said letter dated 04.04.2001 sent bythe 2nd respondent was received by her on 20.04.2001. Immediately, sheappeared before the 2nd respondent on 21.4.2001 and expressed herwillingness to accept the employment. She also sent a letter dated21.04.2001 to respondents 2 and 3 reiterating her stand. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. It is further stated that based on her letter, the ManagingDirector of the 3rd respondent bank by letter dated 25.04.2001,requested the 2nd respondent to send a list of five candidatesincluding the petitioner who did not attend the interview. In thesame letter, the 3rd respondent informed that among 69 candidates, 64were given appointment orders on 08.03.2001 and remaining 5 candidatescould not be given employment, as they did not appear for interview.According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent did not send interviewcard. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondentdid not send interview card by registered post with acknowledgmentdue. As requested by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent sponsored alist of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste (General), Backwardclass (Women) and open competition on 04.05.2001 in which the name ofthe petitioner was found. In that, the 2nd respondent certified thatthe petitioner is within the age limit on the date of sponsoring.Later, on the basis of oral order of 3rd respondent bank, thepetitioner was working as a Clerk in the Harur branch of DistrictCentral Cooperative Bank from 16.05.2001 till 31.05.2001. Then, shewas asked to attend duty after the appointment order was given.Thereafter, neither she was called for interview, nor provided with anemployment. Hence, she sent a representation on 16.07.2001. Inpursuance of the same, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned orderdated 05.12.2001 informing her that she did not appear for theinterview on 28.02.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filedthe present writ petition.5. The 3rd respondent alone filed a counter affidavit highlightingits stand. Among the information furnished, the details stated in para7 of the counter affidavit are relevant. According to the JointRegistrar/Special Officer of the 3rd respondent, by letter dated03.04.2001 the 2nd respondent was informed that five candidatesincluding the petitioner were absent on the date of interview. Then,the 2nd respondent by letter dated 04.04.2001, informed the petitionerwhether she was interested in accepting the employment. On receipt ofthe said letter from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner by letter dated23.04.2001 requested the 2nd respondent to give another opportunity.Based on the request of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent, byletter dated 03.04.2001 sent another list including the name ofpetitioner, but it was not taken up for consideration on account ofadministrative reasons. Consequently, the list sent by the 2ndrespondent was returned by the 3rd respondent by letter dated26.06.2001. In the same counter, the 3rd respondent also furnishedother details about the post of Assistant. As per para-3 of thecounter affidavit, in so far as the post Assistant is concerned, theposts sanctioned were 200, whereas actual number of posts filled upas on 31.03.2001 was 118 and the remaining vacancies were 82. In para-9 while furnishing the position as on 31.12.2006, the 3rd respondenthas stated that in so far as the post of Assistant is concerned,approved cadre strength is 131; staff strength as on 03.12.2006 is 151and number of vacancies is 'Nil'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. In the light of the above pleadings, we heard the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our noticethe communications/letters sent by 2nd and 3rd respondents, which showthat the petitioner did not appear on the date of interview originallyconducted. It is not in dispute that as requested by the 3rdrespondent, the 2nd respondent again forwarded the names of fivepersons including the petitioner. The letter dated 25.04.2001 of the3rd respondent, which is available at page 7 of the typed-set ofpapers, shows that the 3rd respondent requested the 2nd respondent tosponsor five names. Apart from the above factual aspects, learnedcounsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice that even on22.09.2003 this Court directed the 3rd respondent to reserve one post(Assistant) pending disposal of the writ petition. In view of the factthat among the 69 posts for which the interview was originallyconducted, 5 posts were not filled up, because of the absence of fivepersons and at the request of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondentagain forwarded 5 names including the name of the petitioner. Takingnote of the direction of this Court, as mentioned above, we are of theview that the claim of the petitioner ought to have been consideredby the 3rd respondent bank. 8. It is also brought to our notice that now the Government haveliberalised the procedure in regularising all persons either appointedor persons not considered due to various reasons/orders/proceedings.Further, the 3rd respondent has specifically stated that the petitionerwas not considered because of the ban imposed by the Government whichhas subsequently been lifted by G.O.No.249 dated 31.10.2006, asevident from the details furnished in para 8 of the counter affidavit.Hence, we are inclined to issue direction to the 3rd respondent asclaimed by the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioneris otherwise eligible/suitable for the post in question, the 3rdrespondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and passappropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.KhSd/- Asst. Registrar./true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.2. The District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri.3. The Special Officer, Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd (K.K.349), Dharmapuri-636 701.+ One C.C to Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, Advocate SR.No.2540+ One C.C to The Govt. Pleader SR.No.2464+ One C.C to M/S. V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, Advocate SR.No.2368GK(CO)VA [24.01.2007] Order in Writ Petition No.5480 of 2002