A M BASHEER AHMED Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein, who, at the relevant time, was working as a Lab Assistant in Vector Control Research Centre, Pondichery (in short VCRC), has come before us feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his original application, O.A. No.447 of 1999. The facts are slightly complicated.

(2.) The petitioner joined his services in the year 1981 as a Lab Assistant. He continued to be in that post. There was an advertisement by way of a notification dated 23-4-1999 for the post of Lab Technician, which was a promotion post for the Lab Assistants also. At that time, fifty per cent of the posts of Lab Technician were supposed to be filled in by recruitment of candidates from the open market while the remaining posts were to be filled in by promotion. The petitioner did not wait for the selection committee to commence any exercise and straight away challenged the said notification dated 23-4-1999 vide O.A. No.447 of 1999 on the sole ground that it was incumbent upon the authorities to fill up this posts only by way of promotion and not from the open market. He then claimed that he, being the senior-most, was bound to be promoted to that post.

(3.) When the aforesaid original application came for hearing somewhere in the month of June, 2001, the Department had pointed out that the selection process, which was initiated by the notification dated 23-4-1999 had progressed further and had resulted into the selection of one Meghanathan, who is joined here as the second respondent. In his original application, the petitioner had also prayed for the stay of the further selection process but, it seems that there was no stay order passed by the Tribunal with the result, the selection process went further and the second respondent herein was selected. Though this was a selection from the open market, the department candidates were also allowed to take part in the selection process and very strangely, even the petitioner had joined the fray and had offered himself for being selected. Perhaps Meghanathan was found better than the petitioner and that is why Meghanathan came to selected and the petitioner was rejected. This selection came to be made on 15-11-1999. It was therefore clear that O.A. No.447 of 1999 had become infructuous and should have been disposed of as such.