R CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition is directed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 28. 11. 2001 made in O. A. No. 510 of 2001 in and by which the tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner herein. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the above writ petition alone are stated hereunder:-According to the petitioner, he belongs to the Backward Class community and he completed SSLC in the year 1982 and also passed Higher Secondary Course. He passed the course of Machinist in the Government Industrial Training Institute, Erode and to that effect, Nationalised Trade Certificate was issued in the year 1986. He also completed the Vocational Training held in October 1987 and to that effect, National Apprenticeship Certificate was issued in the year 1987. Immediately, he enrolled his name in the Employment Exchange, Erode in the year 1986. He gained experience as Machinist in the Department of Mechanical Engineering in Kongu Engineering College, Perundurai from 7. 8. 1989 and thus, became qualified to be appointed as Junior Training Officer (Machinist ). Since he was having the requisite qualification, he was provisionally selected for the post of Junior Training Officer (Machinist ). After his selection, the first respondent directed him to produce all the documents on 5. 1. 2001, which were produced for verification before the Committee on 5. 1. 2001. The first respondent, instead of issuing the formal order confirming the earlier selection, on extraneous consideration, had taken steps to appoint another person since his date of birth was 15. 2. 1966 and he had completed the age of 35 years on 14. 02. 2001. According to the petitioner, this was in view of the fact that the petitioner was getting age-barred very soon, though his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he was provisionally selected. But, apart from the petitioner, the other persons were of lesser age having lesser experience and they were having more opportunities, whereas for the petitioner, this was the last chance. The action of the first respondent is contrary to the Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 191, Rural Development Department dated 7. 9. 1998 and having no other remedy, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 510 of 2001. The Tribunal, without considering his claim with reference to the above referred Government Order, has erroneously rejected his application. Hence the present writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned government advocate for the first respondent.

(3.) AFTER taking us through the various selection process, the Government Orders and the order of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent has committed an error in not considering the case of the petitioner in the light of G. O. Ms. No. 191, Rural Development Department dated 7. 9. 1998. He further contended that the petitioner herein neither suppressed any material fact nor misled the authorities. Inasmuch as the District Employment Officer, Erode did not say that the petitioner committed a mistake, while sponsoring his name, the order of the first respondent cancelling his initial appointment cannot be sustained, but the same was not considered by the second respondent.