LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-399

S MURUGAN Vs. K SKANDAN; A V VENKATACHALAM

Decided On December 04, 2014
S MURUGAN Appellant
V/S
K Skandan; A V Venkatachalam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29289 of 2007 on the factual matrix that his name was sponsored by the employment exchange for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer with the Respondents-Board and that he got a call letter dated 08.02.2007 and he appeared for the written test. Nothing was heard thereafter, but on 30.03.2007, G.O. (Ms.) No.65 was issued, with a subsequent clarification in G.O. (Ms.) No.86, dated 12.05.2007. The first G.O. dated 30.03.2007 provided for selection of all posts in public sector undertakings in the ratio of 1 : 1 as per the seniority in the employment exchange, while the subsequent G.O. clarified that if the name of the candidate was sponsored by the employment exchange, the Board can select the candidates, who had been sponsored by the employment exchange. The earlier G.O. was not required to be followed for the post involving physical skill and technical parameters.

(2.) The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 06.09.2007 directing the petitioner to make a representation to the second respondent, who, in turn, was required to dispose of the representation within four weeks. The petitioner made a representation, which was rejected by an order, which was impugned in W.P.No.34617 of 2007.

(3.) The writ petition was defended by the respondents, who stated in the counter-affidavit that out of 501 candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, only 256 attended the written test on 11.03.2007. As per the existing procedure, the candidates, who attended the written test, were to be called for interview and the selection was to be based on total marks obtained by them in the written test and interview. However, before calling for interview and correction of answer sheets, G.Os. dated 30.03.2007 and 12.05.2007 were issued stipulating revision of recruitment procedure, whereby the employment exchange would sponsor candidates to the employer in the ratio of 1 : 1, instead of existing ratio of 1 : 20. In view thereof, the respondents-Board called a list of candidates from the employment exchange in the ratio of 1 : 1.