AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—Heard the submissions of Mr M. Ajmal Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rayce Immanuel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
It is the case of the petitioner that he studied upto 10th standard and also got conductor''s license in the year 1990. The petitioner registered his qualification with the District Employment Office, Tuticorin, vide Registration No. 213 of 90.
The respondent called for eligible candidates from Employment Officer, Tirunelveli, for appointment to the post of Conductor and the petitioner''s name was sponsored. The petitioner attended the interview and according to him, he came up successfully.
The petitioner has received a call letter dated 14.01.2008, calling upon him to appear before the concerned authorities for certificate verification and he also appeared on 28.01.2008. The petitioner''s certificate was verified and the respondent seems to be satisfied with the same.
The petitioner was orally informed by the respondent since he is having flexion deformity in his little finger, he is not fit for appointment to the post of conductor. The petitioner in this regard has submitted a representation dated 31.01.2009 to the respondent requesting him to issue the appointment order and in view of the non-response, the petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the matter in issue is directly covered by the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.(MD).No. 317 of 2008. In the said case also, the petitioner/appellant applied for the post of Conductor and it was not considered, as according to the respondent, he was suffering due to some physical disability.
This Court taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case has directed the respondent, who is the respondent in this Writ Petition also, to give appointment to the petitioner/appellant to the post of Conductor. The respondent herein, who was the respondent in the said Writ Petition, challenging the legality of the order, preferred SLP (Civil) No. 25814 of 2008 and it was also dismissed.
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the counsels appearing on either side.
The petitioner is at liberty to submit one more representation to the respondent praying for appointment to the post of Conductor by enclosing the order dated 22.07.2008 made in W.A.(MD). No. 317 of 2008 and the order dated 07.11.2008 made in SLP (Civil) No. 25814 of 2008, within a period of one week from today to the respondent and the respondent on receipt of such representation, is directed to consider the same and pass orders in the light of the orders passed by the Division Bench as confirmed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India.
The respondent is directed to do the said exercise within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.