T.VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent to conduct interview for Women Conductors on the request made by the petitioner in her representation dated 2.3.2010. The petitioner passed her Higher Secondary Course and she secured a conductor's licence issued by the Assistant Licensing Authority, Madurai South and such licence was issued on 2.8.1996, bearing Badge No. 276/96. The petitioner registered her qualification in the Employment Exchange and the employment card filed along with the typed set of papers shows that the said qualification obtained by the petitioner has been registered. The respondent Transport Corporation called for names from the Employment Exchange for filling up the post of Conductors in the Corporation. The petitioner's name was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and she attended the interview on 19.2.2010 at 8 a.m. But, however, the Officers of the respondent Corporation refused to interview the petitioner stating that they do not propose to recruit women candidates for the post of Conductors. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation expressing her anguish and stating that her long cherish dream of functioning as a Women Conductor has been shattered and only because she is a woman, the employer ought not to have adopted such approach. Since the representation was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent, from which, it is seen that a notification was issued on 27.10.2009 to the District Employment Exchange, Madurai to sponsor the eligible candidates for the post of Conductor (daily wages), to fill up 182 vacancies. It is stated that an intimation has been sent to the Employment Exchange stating that not to sponsor women for the post of Conductors. This communication appears to be sent based upon the Government Order, dated 17.2.1989 and that was reiterated by the respondent Corporation by another letter dated 16.11.2009. Therefore, it is stated that the Employment Exchange without considering these communications sent by the respondent corporation wrongly sponsored the petitioner's name. Therefore, it is stated that the respondent corporation will not be in a position to consider the petitioner's candidature. In the counter affidavit it has been admitted that one Tmt. Vasanthakumari was the first Women Driver appointed by the Transport Corporation at Nagercoil and the women driver had to meet so many practical problems. Thereafter, no other women driver has been appointed. Insofar as the post of women conductor is concerned, it is admitted in the counter affidavit that some Transport Corporations have appointed women conductors without following the Government Orders and the letters issued by the Tamil Nadu Government.

(3.) With the above facts, the respondent corporation have expressed their inability to consider the case of the petitioner.