THE DIRECTOR CHENNAI Vs. M.RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ appeals are filed by the State challenging a common order passed by the learned Judge in a group of four writ petitions, setting aside the notification for appointment to the post of Assistant Tourism Officer.

(2.) Heard Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The appellants invited a list of candidates from the Employment Exchange, for filling up certain posts of Assistant Tourism Officers. Upon coming to know of the same and upon finding that their own names were not sponsored, the respondents herein filed the writ petitions. The writ petitions were allowed by a learned Judge by an order dated 13.08.2012, directing the appellants to make wide publicity in the newspapers before resorting to recruitment. This was on the basis of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216, which was followed in Arun Kumar Nayak v. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 111; State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty reported in 2011 (2) SCT 718 and in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and others reported in 2011 (1) SCT 208. Aggrieved by the said order, the State has come up on appeal.