GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. G THANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2920 of 2018, the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition have filed the above Writ Appeal.

(2.) The first respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent dated 29.01.2018 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to approve his appointment as Record Clerk in the fifth respondent school with effect from 06.12017 with all attendant monetary benefits.

(3.) According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, the second respondent/fifth respondent is a non-minority aided school established in the year 1957. The sanctioned staff strength of the school for the year 2017- 2018 is 23 teaching posts and 8 non-teaching posts. One C.Chandrapraba, who was working as Record Clerk in the school was promoted as Lab Assistant on 29.06.2017 and the second respondent/fifth respondent school decided to fill up the said vacancy and on 11.10.2017 issued a notification in Dinamalar Tamil daily calling for application to one post of Record Clerk in OC category as per roster. Since the first respondent/writ petitioner was eligible to be appointed for the said post, he applied for the same. Further based on the request of the school, the District Employment Office, Theni, has sponsored candidates. The first respondent/writ petitioner and other candidates were called for to participate in the selection process. Based on the performance in the selection process, the second respondent/fifth respondent school has selected the first respondent/writ petitioner as Record Clerk and issued the appointment order on 05.12.2017. The first respondent/writ petitioner joined the services on 06.12.2017. By the proceedings dated 07.12.2017, the second respondent/fifth respondent school, sent a proposal for approval to the fourth appellant/fourth respondent. However, the proposal was rejected by the fourth appellant/fourth respondent by the proceedings dated 29.01.2018 stating that the communal rotation fixed by the school as General Turn is wrong and they should have appointed Scheduled Caste Arunthathiyar (SCA) candidate. The fourth appellant/fourth respondent also issued similar proceedings, dated 11.10.2017 and the second respondent/fifth respondent school gave a suitable reply on 28.11.2017. However, the fourth appellant/fourth respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the proposal made by the second respondent/fifth respondent school.