V. Ramesh Kumar vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Sankar

K. Sharma, J.—There is No. appearance on behalf of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari, challenging the list of candidates selected as Assistant Engineer(Electrical) by recruitment

through Employment Exchange in the year 2005-2006.

Inspite of the fact that number of persons were selected vide the impugned list, the Petitioner of his own has chosen to implead only the

Respondent No. 3 as a party, to the Writ.

In support of the prayer, it is pleaded case of the Petitioner, that he passed B.E. degree in Electronics and Communication in the year 1994. The

Petitioner thereafter got his name registered with the Employment Exchange for Professional and Executive Employment Exchange, Chennai.

Petitioner was allotted Registration No. 1994 PE 11400/94, which according to the Petitioner was renewed periodically. That due to non-filling of

posts, the Petitioner could not get the opportunity of employment for the last 15 years.

The Respondent No. 1 and 2 advertised 325 vacancies of the Assistant Engineer Electrical/Mechanical, which were to be filled up by interview

and performance in academic.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that college where the Petitioner studied was not liberal in granting marks, whereas, the other university granted

liberal marks which resulted in candidates from other Universities to secure better marks in selection than the Petitioner.

The selection is challenged on the ground that the Respondent did not fix a reasonable criteria for the candidates who were registered with the

Employment Exchange since 1991,therefore, the select list is violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.

This contention is totally misconceived. The Petitioner having participated in the interview, and taken a chance is estopped to challenge the

criterion of selection, now after being unsuccessful.

It is next admitted by the Petitioner that the candidates those who were sponsored through the Employment Exchange and those who applied

directly were selected by adopting a uniform approach, without any preference to candidates sponsored by employment exchange. This ground

again is totally misconceived, as for the public employment all eligible persons have to be considered, and No. preference can be given to the

persons registered with the Employment Exchange. The Petitioner has challenged the total selection, but has impleaded only one person as third

Respondent out of the selected persons, Without disclosing the basis for this. The Petitioner cannot claim appointment by challenging the

appointment of the Respondent No. 3 only as the challenge to the total select list. On account of non-joining of all selected candidates as party to

the writ petition, the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, thus is not maintainable.

Finding No. merits, the writ petition, is dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No. costs.