N DHARMARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three writ petitions, the petitioners are applicant to various posts, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the second respondent University dated 09 -09 -2010. The selection process is yet to be completed. In the meanwhile, the State Government by the impugned communication dated 10.06.2011 called for original files relating to the appointments made in the University to Government along with the remarks regarding the complaints made by some third persons. In the meanwhile, the University was directed not to take any action for recruitment or grant promotion and the process should be kept in abeyance and in the subject column of the letter, it is stated that the Government has received complaints from various quarters and therefore the information is required.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners was that they are in the association functioning in the University and they are responsible for the affairs at their instance and the Government cannot act and stall the selection process. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that another association has filed writ petitions before this Court being W.P.No.23317 of 2010 and W.P.No.4698 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 07.06.2011 dismissed both the writ petitions and removed the embargo from stalling the selection process and therefore it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once this Court has cleared the hurdle, on the basis of some insubstantial complaint the selection process cannot be stalled and the impugned order dated 10.06.2011 is liable to be set aside with a direction to proceed with the selection process.

(3.) WHEN the State Government has exercised its statutory power and called for information from the University, it is not clear as to how the petitioners can prevent the University from furnishing any information. The communication, which, is challenged has nothing to do with the petitioners or their appointments, as the case may be, and it is for the University to comply with the direction issued by the State Government. The delay in completing the selection process cannot be a ground for urging this Court to give a direction, contrary to the powers exercised by the State Government. The writ petitions are thoroughly misconceived and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.