LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-50

M. VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED

Decided On December 07, 2020
M. Vijayalakshmi Appellant
V/S
CHENNAI METRO RAIL LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 31.07.2013, rejecting the claim of the Writ Petitioner to select and appoint the petitioner, as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Chennai Metro Rail Limited, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner states that she completed Diploma in Civil Engineering during the year 2010. Thereafter, she joined B.E (Civil Engineering) Degree course in Sethu Institute of Technology at Kariapatti. The first respondent issued a Notification on 01.01.2013, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Mechanical/Electrical/Electronic/Civil). The number of vacancies notified for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was 11. The petitioner submitted her application, for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The Recruitment Notification states that the candidates with B.E/B.Tech or any other higher qualifications are not eligible for selection to the post. At the time of advertisement and at the time of submitting the application, the petitioner had not completed her B.E Degree i.e., on 01.01.2013. Thus, the petitioner states that her qualification was Diploma in Civil Engineering and she was eligible for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The petitioner was successful in passing the written test. Though the petitioner passed in the written test, she had not received any communication to attend the proficiency test. Thus, the petitioner sent a representation. However, the first respondent has not replied to the same.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as on the date of Recruitment Notification as well as the date on which, the petitioner submitted application, she was possessing the qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering and she had not completed the B.E. Course. Thus, the petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer and therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in violation of the Notification itself and accordingly, the same is to be scrapped.