S RAVICHANDRAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition, whereby, a direction is sought qua the respondents to call for the records in VeeDvee No.6181/2017, dated 23.10.2017, which is on the file of respondent No.1 and quash the same. A further direction is sought that respondent No.1, be called upon to appoint the petitioner as Office Assistant (in short "OA"), pursuant to application No.10129, dated 20.06.2017, preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) It may be relevant to note that this is a second round of litigation. The petitioner had approached this Court in the first round, when the aforementioned application of the petitioner, for being appointed as OA, was rejected, on the ground that it had not been appropriately filled up. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said writ petition was numbered as: W.P.No.18957 of 2017. This writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 12.09.2017. The operative directions, which were issued in the matter, are contained in paragraph No.6 to 10 of the judgement. For the sake of convenience, the same are set forth hereafter:

(3.) In accordance with the directions issued by the Court, respondent No.1, reconsidered the application of the petitioner. The petitioner was, accordingly, called for an interview. The Selection Committee, which comprised of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai and the Special Judge for MCOP Cases, upon interviewing the petitioner, came to the conclusion that he was not suitable. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, demonstrates that the following marks were given by each of the Committee members to the petitioner.