K.GANESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already registered his name in the employment exchange, but ignoring the name of the petitioner, some other candidates list has been sponsored by the employment exchange. The District Employment Office has sent a list of 756 candidates vide letter dated 28.12.2010 which was received on 28.12.2010 and then 47 candidates vide their letter dated 11.01.2011 which were received on 13.01.2011 by the Corporation, totally prescribed 861 candidates were called for interview. The candidates have been called for interview on 11.01.2011, 12.01.2011, 13.01.2011, 14.01.2011 and 15.02.2011.

(2.) Unfortunatley, some of the candidates whose names have been properly registered and renewed in the employment exchange, who possess required qualification for the post of conductor have not been sent from the District Employment Office, and one such candidate is the petitioner.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that his name has been purposely not sent, thereby his chance of getting employment is denied and that the petitioner is now overaged and his candidature cannot be considered.