P TAMILSELVI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 05. 12. 2001, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith provide employment to the petitioner as Assistant in 3rd respondent bank in terms of 1st respondent's letter dated 20. 05. 1999.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she passed B. Sc. degree examinations on 27. 11. 1990 and also obtained Diploma in Co-operation on 10. 12. 1991. She belongs to Backward community. Then, she registered her name in the District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri, 2nd respondent herein. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent, in its letter dated 29. 08. 1998 requested the Registrar of Co-operative societies to stop all recruitment process for appointment of staff, by direct recruitment, in Primary, Central and Apex Co-operative Institutions. Later, by letter dated 20. 05. 1999, the 1st respondent informed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies that the ban on recruitment is lifted and requested to follow certain norms for recruitment. As per the said norms, the recruitment of staff should be in accordance with the approved cadre strength fixed for each institution and 85% of the vacancies should be filled up by following the seniority list maintained by the concerned District Employment Exchange and 15% of vacancies from the employees of the society concerned based on their seniority. The 1st respondent also made it clear that the rules relating to age and educational qualifications as well as the rule of reservation should be strictly followed.

(3.) IT is the further case of the petitioner that subsequent to the above instructions, the 3rd respondent herein called for a list of eligible candidates from the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent also sponsored 69 candidates, by a list dated 09. 01. 2001. According to the petitioner, her name was also found as Serial No. 10 in the list of backward class women candidates. The 2nd respondent herein by letter dated 04. 04. 2001 informed the petitioner that her name was sponsored, but she did not appear for the interview conducted by the 3rd respondent, and directed the petitioner to explain whether she is really interested in taking up the employment. The 2nd respondent in the same letter directed the petitioner to appear before the District Employment Officer at 11. 00 a. m. without specifying any date. According to the petitioner, the said letter dated 04. 04. 2001 sent by the 2nd respondent was received by her on 20. 04. 2001. Immediately, she appeared before the 2nd respondent on 21. 4. 2001 and expressed her willingness to accept the employment. She also sent a letter dated 21. 04. 2001 to respondents 2 and 3 reiterating her stand.