CENTRAL POLYTECHNIC Vs. N S MAKESH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by allowing of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.15703 of 2009 dated 23.12.2009 and directing the appellants to select the respondent in the merit list for the academic year 2009-2010, appellants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts are that 1st appellant Central Polytechnic at Tharamani advertised in a newspaper for the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (Part-time) during the year 2009-2010. Respondent being eligible for the said course has applied for the course by sending application. According to respondent, from his friend Nagaraj, he came to know that he had gone for counselling on 01.07.2009 itself and thereafter, the respondent contacted the college officials in person. Further case of respondent is that the Head of Department in the Institution informed him that the letter for counselling was already sent to him by 'certificate of posting' and his name was shown at seventh position in the waiting list and fifteenth position in the merit list. Grievance of the respondent is that as against sub-clause (v) of Clause 6:3 of the instruction, Register Number of the selected candidates will be published in the Notice Board of the Polytechnic concerned and the intimation of selection will be sent to the selected candidates by the Principal of the Polytechnic concerned under 'Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due'. But the 1st appellant had chosen to issue letter for counselling not by 'registered post' as per sub-clause (v) of clause 6:3, but by 'certificate of posting'. As a result of which, respondent has lost his chance of getting admission. According to the respondent, certificate of posting alleged by the 1st appellant has not reached him and hence the respondent filed writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing the 1st appellant to send new 'letter for counselling' and select him under the merit list of 1st July, 2009 within the time frame fixed by the Court.

(3.) Learned single Judge held that when there is specific mode of communication specified in sub-clause (v) of Clause 6:3 of the instruction to be followed by the 1st appellant, the same has not been followed. If the communication was sent by RPAD, question of non-receipt of letter for counselling would not have arisen. As a result, respondent would not have wasted his time in pursuing his Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (part-time) and the learned single Judge directed the 1st respondent to send a new letter for counselling and select the respondent under the merit list on 1st July, 2009.