R. THIRUGNANAM Vs. DISTRICT ADHI-DRAVIDAR WELFARE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition is challenging the seniority list, dated 06.12.2007 issued by the first respondent and consequently, seeking for a direction, directing the second respondent to prepare a new seniority list pursuant to 31.10.2007 seniority list.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he passed 10th Std. and got his name registering at the District Employment Office at Pudukkottai on 18.08.1997. The said registration was also periodically renewed. During the year 2006, the first respondent called for employment seniority list from the second respondent to give appointment to the post of cook at the welfare schools. The second respondent sent a list on 31.07.2007 containing the name of 34 persons. In the said list, the petitioner was placed at 10th rank. Thereafter, the first respondent called for interview and gave appointment to the first 3 persons in the seniority list. However, when a list was subsequently sent in the year 2007 for the very same post, the petitioner's name was placed in the 39th rank. Therefore, the first respondent gave appointment only to persons in serial No.1, 6 and 8 in the seniority list. Aggrieved against placing the petitioner in the 39th place in the seniority list prepared on 20.11.2006, the present writ petition is filed before this court.

(3.) THE first respondent stated that he called for list of candidates from the second respondent for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Cook during the year 2006. The second respondent sent a list of candidates, in which the petitioner was placed at the 10th rank. After conducting interview, the first respondent appointed 3 candidates as per seniority. On 21.02.2007, another list was called for to appoint further 3 Assistant Cooks. The second respondent furnished the list containing 85 candidates name, in which the petitioner's name was placed in serial No.39. After conducting an interview, the first respondent gave appointment to the senior most three candidates at serial 1, 6 and 8. Therefore, the petitioner was not selected.