IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.06.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.15369 of 2001 K.Krishnasamy ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai-6. 2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli 627 002. 3.The Secretary, College Committee, G.Venkataswamy Naidu College, Kovilpatti-628 502, Thuthukkudi District. 4.The Principal, G.Venkataswamy Naidu College, Kovilpatti 628 502, Thuthukkudi District. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from considering the outsider for the post of Lecturer in Tamil and to promote the petitioner as Lecturer in Tamil as per the Rules and Orders of the Government. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraju Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Mani For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan for R1 and R2 Additional Government Pleader Mr.A.Sivaji for R3 and R4 O R D E R The writ petitioner in this case joined the third respondent Management College in the year 1975 as a Lab Assistant. While he was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ working with the third respondent, he passed M.A. in Tamil in the year 1994 and scored 56.2% marks. According to the petitioner, he is eligible to be appointed to the post of Lecturer in Tamil. The petitioner claims to have appeared in the tests conducted by the State Level Selection Committee as well as the University Grants Commission Test. According to the petitioner, he passed in the above said tests. 2. In the year 1998, a post of Lecturer in the Tamil Department fell vacant. The petitioner attended the interview along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioner however was not selected. Subsequently another vacancy to the post of Lecturer in Tamil arose in the year 2001. The plea of the petitioner to be appointed to the said post was not considered even then. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the plea of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Tamil and not to select any other open market candidate. 3. A counter has been filed by the third and fourth respondents stating that the petitioner voluntarily attended the interview held to fill up the post of Lecturer in Tamil. In the interview he was not selected for want of merit. It is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable for the relief prayed for. Petitioner attended the interview held in the year 1998 and 2001 along with open market candidates and did not object to it. The petitioner therefore cannot seek any relief before this Court and he is estopped from making such a claim. The learned counsel for the third and fourth respondent prayed that no relief can be granted as such. If any vacancy arises the case of the petitioner will be considered on merits. 4.At the time of final hearing of the writ petition, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.C.Selvaraju states that presently another post of Tamil Lecturer has fallen vacant in the third respondent college. The learned counsel for petitioner on instructions from the petitioner therefore submits that petitioner intends to make a fresh representation to the third and fourth respondents so as to consider his claim on merits. Petitioner on this premise prays for a direction that his case should be considered on merits considering the long service rendered by him in the said institution. The learned Senior Counsel further states that the petitioner has a few more months of service only and is due to retire shortly and therefore his case should be considered sympathetically by the respondents. 5. The writ petition is for a mandamus to consider the plea of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Tamil. The selection in the post is on merit of the candidates. The petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ without demur participated in the interview and therefore cannot have any grouse for his non-selection and therefore his plea for automatic selection cannot be granted. Accepting the statement that there is a vacancy in Tamil Department in the third respondent college presently, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the third and fourth respondents to consider his case on merits. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically taking into consideration the long service already rendered by him in the third and fourth respondent institution if otherwise eligible. The third and fourth respondent to consider the petitioner's claim taking into considering all relevant factors on merits. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vri To 1.The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai-6. 2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli 627 002. 3.The Secretary, College Committee, G.Venkataswamy Naidu College, Kovilpatti-628 502, Thuthukkudi District. 4.The Principal, G.Venkataswamy Naidu College, Kovilpatti 628 502, Thuthukkudi District. 1 cc To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.21583 1 cc To Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate, SR.21827 1 cc To Government Pleader, SR.21571 W.P.No.15369 of 2001 Rs(co) pmk.26.6.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/