P.UDHAYAKUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appointment of the fourth respondent to the post of Night Watchman in Kamayakoundanpatti Panchayat Union, in proceedings dated 09.02.2011, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The facts in nutshell necessary for the consideration of the lis on hand are that, the writ petitioner is a permanent resident of Kamayakoundanpatti and he passed 8th Standard and appeared in S.S.L.C.Examination during the year 1998. He registered his name at Theni District Employment Office on 09.01.1998. The writ petitioner claims that he is a differently abled person. However, he is fit to perform the duties.

(3.) The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he is waiting for employment for the past thirteen years with the fond hope that his name will be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. However, the writ petitioner did not receive any such call letter for interview. He came to understand that the fourth respondent, who is a junior most person in the registration seniority in Theni Employment Exchange and registered his name on 25.01.2000, was called for an interview for appointment to the post of Night Watchman in the second respondent / Panchayat Union. Subsequently, the fourth respondent was appointed to the post of Night Watchman. Thus, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.