1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03-11-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.3584 of 2011 Senthilkumar .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram. 3.Sathakkthullah, 4.Tamilselvam 5.Jeevagan 6.Kousalaya Devi 7.Karthiparaj . .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1/37821/2010 dated 30.07.2010 in the appointment of temporary Work Supervisor and quash the same as illegal and also direct the 2nd respondent to pay compensation Rs.5,00,000/- for the petitioner for the loss incurred by him. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalenthi Spl.Govt.Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a selection made to the post of overseer under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. 2.Heard Mr.S.Muthukrishnan , learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.The petitioner received a call letter from the second respondent asking him to appear for a verification of certificates on 30.07.2010, for selection to the post of Overseer/Junior Drafting Officer, under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The petitioner attended the certificate verification, with all hope, as a person who had waited in the rolls of the employment Exchange for 20 years would naturally do. But the hopes were shattered when the respondents 3 to 7 alone were selected. 4.In order to find out the reasons for his non-selection, the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act. By a letter dated 08.09.2010 he was informed that there were eight vacancies. As per 200 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 point roster, the distribution of vacancies was at the rate of one vacancy for each of the eight categories namely, 1, MBC (Muslim) 2.SC (Men), 3. SC (Women), 4.MBC, 5. BC (Women), 6.BC (PH), 7.General (Woman) and 8. General(PH). 5.Five posts were eventually filled up with one vacancy each allotted to 1. MBC (Muslim), 2. SC (Men), 3. MBC, 4.General (Woman), 5.General (PH). 6.In otherwords, the communication dated 08.09.2010 discloses that there was no post available for Backward Community (General). The petitioner is a male candidate belonging to the Backward Classes, falling under BC (General) category. 7. Shocked at this revelation, the petitioner made another application under the RTI Act. One of the questions which the petitioner asked was as to under what category, he was issued with a call-letter. He was informed by the second respondent that he was called under the category of Backward Community (Non priority). There were no posts reserved for the said category. 8.Therefore challenging the whole selection process, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 9.The primary contention of Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents failed to invite five candidates under each category for each posts, to maintain the ratio of 1:5. It is his further contention that if there was no post reserved for B.C.(non- priority), the petitioner need not have been issued with a call letter at all. 10.The reply given by the respondents would show that the respondents have not strictly maintained 1:5 ratio in respect of some categories. But unfortunately that would not make any dent in the entire selection process, unless the petitioner was one of the candidates who was omitted to be invited for selection, despite coming within the ratio of 1:5. When the petitioner belonged to a category, to which no post was reserved, the fact that the ratio was not followed in respect of the other categories, would not advance his own cause. 11. In so far as the second contention is concerned, it is true that the respondents created huge hopes and suddenly imposed a power cut on the expectations of the petitioner by inviting him. But this cannot lead to the setting aside of the selection itself. Therefore, both contentions raised by the petitioner are bound to fail. 12. The learned counsel also expressed an apprehension that he will not be sponsored for any further selection, because of his being called for the present selection. But the said apprehension is not correct. Only if a person is selected for a post and allotted, his name will get removed from the rolls of the Employment Exchange. The mere sponsoring of the name of a person will not result in his name being removed. However, it is made clear that any nomination that the petitioner has missed on account of this sponsorship shall be compensated by the District Employment Office, Ramanathapuam. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram. . +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR : 38095 +1CC TO MR.S.MUTHUKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE SR : 38138 Mpk SR : 23.11.2011 : 3p/5c W.P.(MD)No.3584 of 2011 03-11-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/