S VELU Vs. MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent viz. , Manonmaniam Sundaranar University rep. by its Registrar, Tirunelveli 9 to act in accordance with their resolution dated 14. 11. 1997 dealing with the appointment of the petitioner as Tabulator and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the permanent post of Tabulator in the respondent University, regularise his services and pay salary and allowances to him in accordance to law.

(2.) HEARD both sides. The petitioner and 14 other persons were sponsored by the employment exchange to the respondent/university to consider them for appointment to the post of Tabulators. It is stated that the petitioner had participated in the typewriting test and precise writing test in the first week of February 1997, the interview conducted on 25. 02. 1997, the petitioner and 14 others were selected and the selection list was placed before the Syndicate on 01. 03. 1997 for approval and a resolution was also passed on 14. 11. 1997 by the Syndicate approving the name of the petitioner and 14 others for appointment to the post of Tabulators, however, before appointment orders were issued, the persons who were already working as Tabulators on adhoc basis in the respondent/university have filed W. P. No. 2591 of 1997 and 3190 of 1997 before this Court against the selection of the petitioner and 14 others and obtained interim injunction and because of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner and 14 others could not be appointed by the respondent. Among the said 14 persons, six of them have impleaded themselves as respondents in the above said writ petitions but the petitioner failed to do so and the respondent/university also filed a petition in WMP NO. 17800 of 1998 to vacate the interim order which was also allowed on 23. 09. 1998, however, in the said order, it was directed that the right of the said persons would be considered subject to the result of the writ petitions. It is stated that the said writ petitions were also disposed of by this Court on 21. 12. 2001 and after disposal of the same, the respondent constituted a committee and the said six persons and others including the petitioner appeared and the committee submitted its report on 05. 09. 2002 and drawn a tentative seniority list as per the directions issued by this Court in the above said writ petitions. Thereafter, the six persons, who got themselves impleaded in the writ petitions were appointed to the post of Tabulators. It is stated that the committee refused to recommend the name of the petitioner and others since they have not impleaded themselves as parties in the writ petitions, hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 28. 01. 2003.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits, which were extended to the other six persons; that the petitioner has passed the typewriting test conducted in the month of February 1997, viva-voce on 25. 02. 1997 and he was selected along with other 14 persons, his name was also sent to the Syndicate for approval which was also approved but appointment order was not issued because of the interim order granted by this Court; that the petitioner failed to implead himself as a party in the writ petitions, which cannot be a reason for denying appointment to the petitioner; that the petitioner also appeared before the committee constituted by the respondent, but the committee, without any valid reasons not recommended the name of the petitioner and prayed for allowing the writ petition as prayed for.