S SENTHILKUMARAN Vs. DIRECTOR AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND TOURISM ADMINISTRATION NO 3 DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application in O.A.No.2793 of 2000 filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.1030 of 2007.

(2.) THE petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of appointment issued by the third respondent and for direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Photographer in accordance with law on the basis of the recommendation of the second respondent with consequential monetary and service benefits.

(3.) IN the said Proceedings, dated 28.01.2000, it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner has got 9 marks out of 10 and in the case of the third respondent, he was allotted only 6 marks out of 10 by the INterview Committee. That being the case, it is further contended that the appointment of the third respondent cannot be said to be legally sustainable, for the simple reason that the petitioner was allotted with higher marks by the INterview Committee, but the first respondent wrongly appointed the third respondent, who secured lesser marks than the petitioner. Therefore, on the above submissions he prayed for setting aside the order of appointment made in favour of the third respondent with consequential direction to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Photographer.