AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, the petitioner has sought a direction to the first respondent to give
employment to him as Conductor with effect from 19.8.1997.
It is not in controversy that the petitioner was selected for the post of Conductor by the first respondent Corporation through the District
Employment Exchange, Tirunelveli during December 1996; that from that time onwards, he was to work as Conductor; and that he worked for
two days. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner absented himself thereafter, and subsequently, he attended an interview, and he was
selected on 15.9.1997, following the medical test; but, he could not be given employment in view of the fact that the employment exchange card
was barred by time, and it was to be renewed, and the appointment was kept pending. He was further advised to renew the card; but, the
petitioner till now has not renewed the same, and instead, he has brought forth this writ application seeking the remedies.
From the very averments and the submissions made, it could be well seen that the petitioner originally selected in the year 1996, worked for
only two days; that he absented himself without any explanation; that he was subsequently selected for the second time through the Employment
Exchange; that at that time, his employment exchange card was found one without validity, and hence, he was advised to renew the same; but, he
has not acted so, as per the rules, till this time. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner without following the procedures, contemplated under
the relevant rules, has now come forward with this writ application after a longtime. This Court is able to see not only laches on the part of the
petitioner, but also it is not a case where any of his rights has been violated by either of the respondent.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition fails, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the
second respondent for renewal of the employment exchange card. It is also made clear that such renewal would in no way give him any right to
approach the first respondent regarding the employment what is in question. No costs.