A.Ragounandanan v. The state rep. by its Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.09.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHW.P.No.12633 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 20091.A.Ragounandanan 2.N.Manivannane ..PetitionersVs1. The state rep. by its Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.2. The Secretary to Government, Department of Electricity Board, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.3. The Superintendent Engineer_I Electricity Department, Pondicherry. ..RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to recruitthe candidates from the list of Eligible candidates submitted by thePondicherry Employment Exchange for the Post of Construction Helper(Work-Charged) after conducting the Interview. For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan For Respondents : Mr.M.R.Thangavelu Govt.Pleader (Pondicherry)ORDERThe writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the writof mandamus directing the respondents to recruit the candidates fromthe list of eligible candidates through the Pondicherry EmploymentExchange for the post of Construction Helper (Work- Charged).2. The case of the petitioners is that without following theseniority list furnished by the Employment Exchange, the respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are seeking to appoint the persons for the post of ConstructionHelper by issuing notification. Therefore, the learned counselsubmitted that the non-following of the said procedure which wasfollowed earlier is bad in law. According to the learned counsel,the seniority list maintained by the Employment Exchange alone shouldbe the criteria for selection.3. The learned counsel for the respondent raised the preliminaryobjection stating that the issue raised by the petitioners ispertaining to the service case and therefore the petitioners canonly file an application before the Central Administrative Tribunaland not before this Honourable Court. 4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, theposts involved in the present writ petitions are civil post and theyare permanent in nature and therefore the writ petition is notmaintainable. In support of his contention the learned counsel forthe respondents relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of thisCourt rendered in 1994 Writ L.R 690 (Government of Tamil Nadu etc, &2 others Vs. P.Hepzi Vimala Bai) and contended that even pre-recruitment cases are also covered by Section 19 of theAdministrative Tribunal Act and hence the writ petition is notmaintainable. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thatinasmuch as the post sought to be filled is only the Work-Chargepost, the writ is maintainable. According to the learned counsel forthe petitioner, the work-charge employment is related to the specificwork and therefore, the same being temporary in nature, it cannot beconstrued that it is the Government post and therefore, the writpetition is maintainable. 6. The learned counsel relied upon the judgments reported in1996 (10) SCC 162 (State of Punjab and others Vs. Jit Singh) and 1997(2) SCC 517 (State of Rajasthan Vs.Kunji Raman) in support of hiscontention that work-charged employees and the employees on regularestablishment are two separate and distinct category of employees andtherefore, the writ petition is maintainable.7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that thepost is a Civil post. He further stated, on instruction, that thesaid post ought to be filled up by the notification issued by therespondent is a permanent post. Therefore, once there is a Civilpost and the same is permanent in nature, this Court cannotentertain the same by passing an alternative remedy provided underAdministrative Tribunal Act. The Central Administrative Tribunal hasbeen constituted for the purpose of deciding all disputes pertainingto the Government employees, which is inclusive of pre-recruitmentdisputes as well. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. In the judgement reported in 1994 Writ law reported in 690(Government of Tamil Nadu etc, & 2 others Vs.P.Hepzi Vimala Bai) ofHonourable High Court has held as follows:"In our view, the use of the expression 'mattersconcerning recruitment'is wide enough to cover and includeall matters concerning recruitment. There is no warrant tomake a distinction between 'pre-recruitment matters' and'recruitment matters'. We are of the opinion that the viewexpressed by the Division Bench in Ruban's case that only'in service' candidates can raise disputes in respect ofmatters pertaining to recruitment and not a person not inservice is not acceptable. On the contrary, 'recruitment'is a process which would cover within its ambit all thenecessary steps commencing from the stage of notifying thevacancies and ending with appointment of selectedcandidates. The fact that the definition of the expression'service matters' in S 3 (q) of the Act does not make anyreference to recruitment is wholly irrelevant.'Recruitment' is separately referred to in the preamble aswell as in the relevant provisions of the Act. In additionthereto, the expression 'conditions of service of personsappointed' is also found.S.3(q) of the Act is applicable topersons appointed to service. That is why that sectiondoes not make any reference to 'recruitment'.9. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the presentwrit petition is not maintainable and the only remedy open to thepetitioners is to file an appropriate application before the CentralAdministrative Tribunal.10. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner reported in 199610 SCC 162 and 1997 2 SCC 517 are not applicable to the present caseof hand. In the said judgments, the respondents therein areadmittedly work-charge employees. The question involved in the saidcases is as to whether the procedure adopted for the Governmentservant will have to be followed for a work-charge employee or not.Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to hold the saidprocedure which is contemplated for a regular employee, need not befollowed for a work-charge employee, since a work-charge employee isnot a regular employee. However, in the present case, the grievanceof the petitioner is that the notification issued without followingthe seniority list of the Employment Exchange is not correct.11. As observed earlier the said question cannot be decided bythis Court since the post sought to be filled up as a permanent Civilpost and therefore the dispute being the pre–recruitment dispute, thesame can only be adjudicate before the Central AdministrativeTribunal. Hence, while dismissing the writ petition, liberty isgiven to the petitioners to agitate their grievances before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Central Administrative Tribunal. With these observations, the writpetition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is alsoclosed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargvTo 1. The Chief Secretary, Sstate rep. by its Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.2. The Secretary to Government, Department of Electricity Board, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.3. The Superintendent Engineer-I, Electricity Department, Pondicherry.+ 1 c.c. to Mr. P.R. Thiruneelakandan, Advocate. S.R.No.46081.+ 1 c.c. to The Senior Government Pleader -cum-Senior Public Prosecutor (P). S.R.No.45725.W.P.No.12633 of 2009andM.P.No.1 of 2009KSK (CO)GSK 14.09.2009.