M. Balasubramanian vs The Director of Municipal Administration and The Commissionerate of Employment and Training

M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner has preferred the instant writ of Certiorari in calling for the records of the selection list dated 29.01.2010

published by the 1st respondent and to quash the same. Brief factual background:-

The Petitioner is possessing qualification of Master of Arts degree in Sociology from Annamalai University. He finished his post graduation in

M.A., Sociology (during the year 1991). Later, he enrolled his name with the 2nd respondent/The Commissionerate of Employment and Training,

Chennai-5 on 13.01.1995.

It is the case of the Petitioner that he belongs to Most Backward Community viz., Vettuva Gounder Community which is Denotified Community.

At the time of filing of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner''s age was 45. After 15 years, the Second Respondent sponsored his name for the post of

Community Organiser. As such, the First Respondent through letter dated 09.11.2009 communicated to the Petitioner as per his memorandum of

Roc. No. 43326/2009/UPA3, for the said post of ''Community Organiser'' in the Urban Local Bodies. Also, he was requested to furnish a

detailed Annexure 1 & 2 with self attested photo copies of the certificates indicated in the Annexure before 25.11.2009 etc.,

The Petitioner was given an unique I.D. No. 2095 by the First Respondent. The Petitioner satisfied all the necessary requirements and submitted

the application in time. The grievances of the Petitioner is that for a vacancy of 133 Community Organizer, the First Respondent has floated

application called for almost 650 candidates who attended the interview on 07.01.2010 and 08.01.2010 respectively. The Petitioner attended the

interview on 07.01.2010 with all necessary particulars in original to be produced before the authorities at the time of interview.

According to the Petitioner, he was interviewed by the three persons along with the Director of Municipal Administration, the Petitioner was put

with the following questions (i) what is your name? (ii) whether will you accept the job if you are given? Other than these two questions nothing

was asked by the officials who interviewed him and did not put any subject question nor ask anything more than what was stated before.

The stand taken by the Petitioner is that he was surprised to see in the internet, the list of candidates provisionally selected and published by the

First Respondent in regard to fill up the vacancies in the post of Community Organizer in the Urban Local Bodies. Almost 133 candidates name

found in the list. Unfortunately, his name was not found in the list.

Yet another stand of the Petitioner is that when the department itself had given an unique number as 2095 and when he has stood seniority to all

the persons who were selected after Unique I.D. No. 2095, for the reasons best known to the first Respondent he was not selected and therefore,

he was perforced to project the present writ petition before this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the First Respondent''s selection of candidates is highly questionable for the

simple reasons that the Petitioner''s seniority was given thereby selecting Juniors to the Petitioner from the Employment Exchange. Therefore, it is

contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the selection list dated 29.01.2010 published by the first Respondent is liable to be quashed in the

interest of justice.

In response, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R1 and R2 submits that there were 134 vacancies in the post of

''Community Organizer'' in the Urban Local Bodies in the State and with a view to fill up these vacancies, the Second Respondent/The

Commissionerate of Employment and Training, Chennai was addressed by the first Respondent in letter No. 43326/2007/UPA3 dated

30.01.2009 to sponsor candidates in the ratio of 1: 5 following the communal as per the orders of the Government in force. The Assistant Director

(Professional and Executive) Office of the Second Respondent sponsored 605 candidates on 14.09.2009 based on the communal ordered by the

Government letter No. 40321/K2/2008-1 P & AR Department dated 29.07.2008, the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 206, P & AR Department

dated 06.11.2008, and the Government letter No. 52180/K2/2008 dated 06.11.2008, the Government G.O.Ms. No. 65 P & AR (K)

Department dated 27.05.2009, the Government letter No. 20635/K2/2009-3 P & AR Department dated 27.05.2009, and in G.O.Ms. No. 142

P & AR Department dated 14.10.2009.

The Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R1 & R2 brings it to the notice of this Court that the first Respondent dated

15.05.2009 addressed a communication to the Directorate of Ex-servicemen''s Welfare, Chennai 3 as per the orders of the Government, since ex-

servicemen were to be considered and accordingly, the Ex-servicemen Welfare Directorate sponsored the names of 47 candidates on 09.07.2009

and 30.07.2009 respectively. Altogether, 652 candidates were sponsored to fill up 134 vacancies in the post of Community Organizer in the

Urban Local Bodies.

It comes to be known that the First Respondent in his proceedings dated 29.10.2009 constituted a Selection Committee consisting the

Directorate of Municipal Administration to work out the modalities of conducting the selection of candidates for filling up the vacancies in the post

of Community Organizer. On 04.11.2009, the Selection Committee in its meeting among other things decided that while preparing the list of

candidates sponsored by the Second Respondent Training and the Directorate of Ex-Servicemen''s Welfare and Unique ID number starting from

2001 to 2652 would be assigned to each of the candidates to facilitate easy reference during the selection. As a matter of fact, the said number is

purely for the identification of the individuals and not at all based on the rank of the candidates. Further, the 2nd meeting of the Selection

Committee was conducted on 27.11.2009 and it was inter-alia decided to conduct the interview on 7th and 8th January 2010 at the Tamil Nadu

Institute of Urban Studies, Coimbatore. Also, the Director of the Tamil Nadu Institute of Urban Studies, Coimbatore was requested to arrange for

two experts in Sociology/Social Work who can be either academicians or from NGOs and well versed in the subject and duly qualified, to assist in

the selection of candidates during the course of interview.

The Director of Municipal Administration in his proceedings No. 43326/2007/UPA3 dated 21.12.2009 constituted two Interview Committees

to conduct the interview for the candidates sponsored by the Second Respondent office and Training and the Directorate of Ex-Servicemen''s

Welfare on 7th and 8th January 2010 at the TNIUS, Coimbatore. One of the Committee members Dr. K.C. Leelavathi, Director, Centre of

Women''s Study, Avinasilingam University, Coimbatore expressed her inability to participate in the selection of candidates on 7th and 8th January

2010. As such, Dr. K. Kandappan, Head of Department of Social work, Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya, Coimbatore was engaged based on the

recommendation of the Director, Tamil Nadu Institute of Urban Studies, Coimbatore in the Interview Committee in the place of Dr. K.C.

Leelavathy.

Continuing further, the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R1 and R2 contends that in the meeting of the Selection

Committee, a conscious decision was taken to assess the real merit of the candidates by allotting 90 marks (out of total of 100 marks) for the

marks obtained by the candidates in the Post Graduation degree in Sociology/Social Work and 10 marks (out of total of 100 marks) for the

interview.

Also, that a team of well experienced Superintendents of the Directorate of Municipal Administration''s office were nominated for verification

of the certificates and calculating the marks obtained by the candidates based on the grades awarded in the Post Graduation degree in

Sociology/Social Work. The marks obtained in the Post Graduation Degree was calculated, for example, in the Post Graduation, if a candidate

secured 1195 marks out of total 2100 marks, it would be calculated for 90 as under

The calculation made was supervised and checked by senior officers of the First Respondent''s Office.

In the interview was conducted on 7th and 8th January 2010 by the members of the two Interview Committees constituted for this purpose

and marks were awarded for the interview. After the interview, the marks secured by the candidates both for the grades in the Post graduation

degree (Sociology/Social Works) and in the interview were compiled and purely considering the merits of the candidates and following the

communal rotation ordered by the Government.

It is submitted by the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R1 and R2 that 133 candidates were selected to fill up the 134

vacancies in the post of Community Organizer in the Urban Local Bodies. One candidate could not be selected since no ST candidates appeared

for the interview. Finally, 133 candidates selected were published in the website on 29.01.2010. In M.P. No. 2 of 2010 in the present writ

petition, the plea for stay has been rejected. However, it has been made clear that any selection made would be subject to the outcome of this writ

petition. Abiding orders of this Court, the selection of candidates for filling up the vacancies in the post of Community Organizer was completed by

the first Respondent and appointment orders were issued to all the 133 selected candidates on 20.02.2010 with a condition that the appointment

order is made subject to the out come of this Writ Petition. On 11.03.2010, 101 candidates joined duty as Community Organizers in the Urban

Local Bodies based on the appointment orders issued by First Respondent.

In the instant case, it is true that unique I.D. No. 2095 was allotted to the Petitioner and this number was allotted not on the basis of the rank

obtained by the candidates as contended by the petitioner. In reality, it was only a serial number allotted as per the list of candidates furnished by

the Second Respondent purely for the purpose of identification. As such, the contra view of the petitioner, in this regard is not a correct one.

As far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner appeared before the Interview Committee on 07.01.2010 and the interview was

conducted by the interview Committee No. 1 headed by the Director of Municipal Administration. In fact, Version of the Petitioner, only two

questions were put to enter viz., (i) what is your name? (ii) Whether will you accept the job if you are given? were not correct one and it is totally

contrary to the facts. In fact, out of the 652 candidates called for the interview on 7th and 8th January 2010, only 364 candidates attended the

interview on these days. The Petitioner appeared before the first Committee headed by the First Respondent on 07.01.2010, which interviewed

100 candidates including the Petitioners. There was ample time to conduct a detailed interview and to put as many questions as possible. In the

interview committee No. 1 in which the petitioner appeared for the interview, Dr. J. Paranjothi Ramalingam, Professor, Head of the Department of

Social Work, Amrita University, Coimbatore was engaged and he had asked questions to the candidates. Therefore, the contrary averments made

by the Petitioners are baseless. To put it differently, the interview was conducted in a proper and systematic fashion.

Totally 82 candidates, belonging to the Most Backward Community (Denotified), attended on 7th and 8th January 2010. Of them, 33

candidates got selected taking into account the rank obtained by the 1st selected Most Backward Community (Denotified) is 68.52 and the lowest

last selected Most Backward Community (Denotified) is 56.31. The Petitioner has obtained 5 marks in the interview out of 10 and secured 45

marks for the academic score obtained in Post Graduation Degree in Sociology (out of the maximum marks of 100) which includes both the marks

for the grades obtained in Sociology and in the interview.

It is contended on behalf of the Respondents that even if the Petitioner had secured 10 full marks in the interview (out of the Maximum of ten

marks), he would not have come within the selection of zone. Inasmuch as he secured only 50 marks out of 100, at this stage, it is to be borne in

mind that in Most Backward Community category, the last selected candidate secured 56.31 marks. Also, it is pleaded on behalf of the

Respondents that the selection was made strictly following the communal rotation as ordered by the Government various letters and G.O.Ms. No.

142 P& AR Department dated 14.10.2009 as stated earlier. As such, this Court is not repeating the same in detail once again. On a closer

scrutiny of the contentions advanced on respective sides and also in view of the attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an integral

manner, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the selection list dated 29.01.2010 published by the Respondent, does not suffer from

impropriety or illegality in the eye of law.

Per contra, this Court holds in categorical terms that selection of the candidates was purely based on the marks obtained by them in Post

Graduation Degree (90% weightage and interview marks 10% weightage) and also that the communal rotation was followed as per the prevailing

orders of the Government and there has been no violation of the rules of any kind. Resultantly, the writ petition fails.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.