LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-346

A NAMBIVENKATESH Vs. TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Decided On March 12, 2008
A. NAMBIVENKATESH Appellant
V/S
TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENNAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 1.11.2007, made in a batch of writ petitions containing 11 cases, has filed this present appeal.

(2.) THE appellant was the applicant for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II before the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He sent his application in the prescribed form, but he was not allowed to write the written examination. Hence, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition contending that he fulfilled all the requirements as required in the Notification published in the newspaper on 18.4.2007 and has also annexed necessary testimonials as required under the Notification, hence, the action of the respondents in not allowing him to write the pre-qualifying examination is not correct. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant was allowed to write the examination with the rider that the result of the examination would be subject to the result of the writ petition. THE application of the appellant was rejected on the ground that he did not enclose the experience certificate in driving the heavy transport vehicle prescribed for the post as announced in Paragraph 5-B(v) of the Commission's Notification dated 18.4.2007. THE Notification which was advertised in a Tamil daily in Advertisement No. 107 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, required that the applicant must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive light motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles and the applicant must have experience in driving heavy transport vehicles for a period of not less than six months.

(3.) WHEN that being the factual position, the respondents as well as the learned single Judge are not correct in taking a decision that the appellant has not submitted the required certificates along with his application. He further contended that with reference to the requirements in Paragraph 5-B(v) which is to the effect that in the absence of any particular form prescribed by the respondents for furnishing the experience certificate, the certificates attached by the petitioner given by T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons and Aruppukottai Sri Jayavilas Ltd., should be construed as certificates meeting the requirements prescribed under Paragraph 5-B(v) of the Notification.