T. Lenin vs The Commissioner for Agriculture, The Director of Employment and Training Department, The Joint Director of Agriculture Department and The District Employment Officer, The Employment and Training Dept.

T. Raja, J.—The Petitioners have filed the present writ petitions, seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the Respondents

from making any appointment for the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer without allowing the Petitioners to attend the interview and following 1:5

ratio as contemplated under G.O. Ms. No. 18, Labour and Employment (N2) Department, dated 25.02.2008.

Inasmuch as the prayer made in all the above writ petitions is one and the same and the issue is interconnected, the matters are heard together

and disposed of by this Common Order.

The Petitioners herein, after completion of the Agricultural course pursued by them, had included the Specialty in their respective enrollments

with the District Employment Exchange concerned during the year 2009 and 2010. From the Newspaper Publication dated 21.09.2010, it came

to be known that the 1st Respondent had proposals to fill up 995 posts of Assistant Agricultural Officer all over the State of Tamil Nadu in the

Department of Agriculture. The 2nd Respondent-Director of Employment and Training Department at Guindy was to sponsor candidates to the

post in question. The Petitioners, who are eligible to be considered and appointed to the said post, approached the Employment Exchange. After

verification of the documents by the Exchange, the Petitioners were told that they would receive the Interview Cards shortly. The Petitioners were

under the bona fide impression that they would be receiving the Interview Cards as and when the formalities are over. On coming to know that

some other candidates received the Interview Cards, the Petitioners often approached the authorities, but in vain. It is the grievance of the

Petitioners that the authorities wrongfully deprived them of their lawful opportunity to participate in the interview by purposely not issuing the

Interview Cards and further, 1:5 ratio as prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 18 dated 25.02.2008 has not been adhered to. In such circumstances,

highlighting the claim that some of the juniors of the Petitioners were issued with Interview Cards while others have already been appointed, it is

prayed that this Court may issue a mandamus as sought for by the Petitioners.

Mr. G. Ethirajulu, at the first instance, arguing the case of Mr. T. Lenin-Petitioner in W.P. No. 1969 of 2011, would submit that the

Respondents totally ignored to apply G.O. Ms. No. 18, dated 25.02.2008, which prescribes adherence to 1:5 ratio in the appointment of

Assistant Agricultural Officers and thereby, the Petitioners, who would come within the zone of consideration of appointment, are very unfairly

excluded to favour certain candidates, who do not even fulfill the criterion as specified in the G.O. According to him, some of the candidates were

issued with Interview Cards and they are much juniors to the Petitioners in terms of enrollment with the Employment Exchange. Learned Counsel

elaborated his line of submission by stating that very conveniently, the Respondents have not mentioned as to what is the cut-off date on which they

proceeded to issue the Interview Cards calling upon the incumbents for the post. Therefore, it could be easily discerned that without following the

G.O. aforementioned and without following the 1:5 ratio as prescribed therein, appointments are being made in contravention to the mode and

scheme envisaged in the Government Order. In such a circumstance, if the Respondents are allowed to proceed further, the Petitioners will not be

in a position to participate in the interview and they will be unduly deprived of what they are legally entitled to. So submitting, learned Counsel

pleads for grant of the prayer sought for.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate, by filing a detailed counter-affidavit, submitted that, in the process of appointing candidates, in letter

and spirit, G.O. Ms. No. 18, dated 25.02.2008, is being followed scrupulously. In fact, the 2nd Respondent-Director of Employment and Training

Department finalized the State-Level Consolidated Seniority List for the post in question only in the ratio of 1:5 as prescribed in the aforesaid

Government Order and the cut-off dates finalized for nomination for the post is drawn thus:

a) For SC Non-Priority Upto

Candidates: 18.07.2006

b) For MBC Non-priority Upto

Candidates: 13.03.2006

c) For B.C. Non-priority Upto

Candidates: 17.10.2001

d) For O.C. Non-priority Upto

Candidates: 12.01.2009

Contrasting the case of Petitioner-Lenin with the aforesaid criterion pertaining to the cut-off date relevant to him in terms of the community

category he belongs to, learned Government Advocate submitted that the Petitioner falling under B.C. Non-Priority Category, for whom the cut-

off date finalized is 17.10.2001, whereas, the date of enrollment/seniority of the candidate is 28.01.2009. Therefore, according to her, when the

Petitioner is not even coming within the purview of selection, there is no point at all in arguing that the G.O. in question is not adhered to and in

making an allegation that the 2nd Respondent did not recommend the name of the Petitioner to the first Respondent for the post.

As regards Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2876 and 2942 to 2945 of 2011 viz., S. Sivaperumal, S. Andichamy, B. Palanisamy, R. Sathish, P.

Ramachandran, it is pointed out that their date of enrollment is 24.08.2009, 17.03.2009, 27.01.2009, 06.08.2009 and 05.02.2010, and the

community category they belong to being MBC, SC, MBC, BC and SC respectively, none of them comes within the zone of consideration in

terms of the cut-off date finalized as per the Government Order against each category.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted, by referring to the additional affidavit filed by him, that even though it is the stand of the

Respondents that the entire process continues only in terms of the G.O., some of the batch-mates of the Petitioners by name,

a) L. Pechaiappan (OC non priority) : Enrollment date-21.11.2008,

b) B. Madhan (BC non priority) : enrollment date-not known,

c) S. Manojkumar (BC non priority) : Enrollment date-11.10.2009,

d) Kumaresan (SC non priority) : Enrollment date-11.10.2008,

e) K. Yogendhiran (SC non priority) : Enrollment date-03.01.2009,

f) A. Selvakumar (BC non priority) : Enrollment date-not known,

g) E. Kumaresan (MBC non priority) : Enrollment date not known,

h) A. Marimuthu (SC non priority) : Enrollment date-10.11.2008 and

i) Thanajalian (MBC non priority) : Enrollment date-12.01.2009, have been appointed as Assistant Agricultural Officers despite the fact that they

do not meet the criterion of seniority in terms of the cut-off date fixed as per the G.O., therefore, the Petitioners, who are all senior to those

individuals, should be given appointment as Assistant Agricultural Officer.

This Court, after considering the rival submissions advanced on either side and carefully perusing the materials produced, may hasten to add that

the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not

able to make out a case that G.O. Ms. No. 18, dated 25.02.2008, has not been followed in the process of appointment, whereas, from the

counter affidavit filed, this Court finds that a State Level Consolidated Seniority List was finalized by the 2nd Respondent in strict adherence to the

ratio of 1:5 with due relevance to the above extracted cutoff dates against each communal category as stipulated in the G.O., and on examining the

case of the Petitioners in that perspective, it is apparent that none of them falls within the zone of consideration to pass any order in their favour.

Secondly, though by way of Additional typed set, the Petitioner has pointed out some of the juniors, who also do not fall within the zone of

consideration, were appointed, it must be made clear that this Court cannot act upon those details without any substantive proof to convince that

actually, there was violation of the G.O. by the Respondents. Unfortunately, learned Counsel for the Petitioners could not produce a copy of any

interview card or appointment order issued to such individuals to substantiate his case. Thus, there being no valid reason or ground to entertain the

case of the Petitioners, the prayer sought for cannot be granted.

In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of any merit. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous

Petitions are closed.