R KALAIARASAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Prayer amended as per court order dated 02.09.2008 made in W.P.No.4 of 2008 in] The petitioner is working as a Technician Grade III in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Department of Chennai Port Trust. The Chennai Port Trust called for applications from the eligible candidates working in the Chennai Port Trust for the post of Diesel Loco Drivers by Notification dated 02.04.2008. The last date for submission of application was 11.04.2008. The qualification for making application is a pass in III Form or VIII Standard and preference would be given for those who are holding National Apprenticeship Certificate in Mechanic, Diesel Mechanic or Electrician Trade. Yet another essential qualification is experience as follows:-

(2.) AS many as 198 employees made application, out of whom 103 were found to be eligible and they were called for interview, which include the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 14 also. A total number of 100 candidates attended the interview. The interview was conducted by a selection committee consisting of six members. The President of the Committee is the Chief Mechanical Engineer. The Members are Secretary, SME (R & D), Executive Engineer (C), A.C.O.S., and Analyst Programmer. The selection committee formulated the following norms for awarding marks to the qualification and experience:- TABLE

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is contended by the petitioner that the entire process of selection for the post of diesel loco drivers was done in a most suspicious, arbitrary, colourable and discriminatory manner coupled with extraneous consideration. IN the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that that of the candidates, who have been selected did not have the experience as required by the notification in the field. It is further stated that in respect of marks to be awarded for the experience, there are anomalies. It is further stated that the petitioner, for having 11 years of experience, though as per the norms he is entitled for 9 marks, has been awarded only 6 marks. Similarly for several other candidates marks have not been properly awarded for the experience. Though the interview was conducted by the committee consisting of 6 members, each member did not chose to award marks on assessing the performance and personality of each candidate and instead, there is only a consolidated marks given for each candidate, which is not correct, it is contended.