R. Palanikumar vs The Director of Employment and Training

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing

the respondent to call the petitioner for interview for certificate verification and consider the petitioner''s case for appointment to the post of Junior

Training Officer(Machinist), in the next vacancy, and pass such further orders.

The Petitioner completed ITI-Machinist(Grinder) in the year 1985 and got himself registered with the District Employment Exchange in the year

1985. The petitioner also completed the Apprenticeship with M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai during the period 30.10.1985 and

30.10.1986 and thereafter, worked as Machinist with M/s. Vinayaka Engineering Works, Then during the period 15.01.1995 to 15.07.1999.

The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Junior Training Officer-Machinist(Grinder). In

pursuance to the interview letter, the petitioner appeared before the Committee on 11.12.2000 for certificate verification.

The respondent after verification of certificate informed the petitioner that his name was being dropped from the Provisionally selected list, on

verification of seniority.

The petitioner thereafter made a representation on 16.12.2002, praying for appointment as Junior Training Officer-Machinist(Grinder) on the

basis of the provisionally selected list. The petitioner made a representation to the Honourable Chief Minister also. The representation filed by the

petitioner was not considered, which forced the petitioner to file W.P(MD) No.971 of 2004, for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus,

directing the Director of Employment and Training to consider his request in the representation dated 16.12.2002. The Writ Petition was disposed

of by this Court, by passing the following order:

ORDER

Learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner''s request made in his letter dated

16.12.2002.

The petitioner has registered himself with the respondent and it goes without saying that as and when vacancy arises befitting the qualification of

the petitioner, the respondent would sponsor the names of the candidates who have been registered in his office including the petitioner to undergo

the selection process.

In such circumstances, no special treatment can be shown to the petitioner, merely because he lost his chance on an earlier occasion. Therefore

there is no scope for issuing a direction as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition.

As stated earlier, as and when any vacancy arises and candidates are to be sponsored by the respondent, the respondent shall in the routine

manner consider the case of the petitioner along with other registered candidates for being sponsored for undergoing the selection of any such

vacancy.

The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

The petitioner felt satisfied with the order passed by this Court and no Writ Appeal was filed. Inspite of specific directions issued by this Court

that the respondent shall in routine manner considered the case of the petitioner along with other candidates for being sponsored for selection if any

such vacancy arises. The petitioner, made another representation to consider his case for appointment on the basis of Employment Exchange

seniority.

It is now well-settled law that it is not open to make appointment only through Employment Exchange. As for public employment, all eligible

candidates are to be considered, sponsoring of candidates by the Employment Exchange is only one mode of appointment.

It is always open to the petitioner to apply for the post for being considered for appointment with all eligible persons as and when vacancy is

advertised. No directions can be issued. The procedure of appointing persons on the seniority of Employment Exchange, per se is violative of

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the State or its authorities cannot resort to a method of employment, by which all the eligible

persons are not considered.

In the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, nothing has been shown as to whether there is any available vacancy against which his name can be

considered. This Court cannot issue a writ in general in vague terms, directing the respondents to consider the case of the candidate as and when

vacancy arises, without looking into the qualification, age restriction etc., which may be fixed for filling up of the post.

The prayer made being vague cannot be allowed. This Court cannot issue futile writs.

Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.