1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8701 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 R.Dhanushkodi ... Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District Employment Officer Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District 3. The Tahsildar Virudhunagar Taluk Virudhunagar District 4. Mr.Prabhu ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the selection list issued by the third respondent for the post of Village Assistants in Virudhunagar District based on the interview held on 11.08.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant in Virudhunagar District by considering his employment registration seniority. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Alleging, irregularities in the matter of selection to the post of Village Assistants, the petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the selection list issued by the third respondent for the post of Village Assistants in Virudhunagar District, based on the interview held on 11.08.2010 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the third respondent to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant in Virudhunagar District by considering his employment registration seniority. 2. Though the petitioner has stated that his name was not sponsored, for the interview fixed on 11.08.2010 and that, the fourth respondent who is his relative and Junior in the employment seniority has been selected, the selection of the fourth respondent has not been individually challenged. Excepting the fourth respondent, none of the selected candidates in the scheduled caste quota or the other selected candidates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 have been arrayed as party / respondents. If for any reason, the case of the petitioner has not been considered and if the selection of the fourth respondent is contrary to rules, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the selection. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 3. A Writ Petition to quash the entire selection list for the post of Village Assistant, in Virudhunagar District, cannot be entertained on the basis of a news item published in a newspaper. The affidavit is benefit of details except to the extent of considering the fourth respondent overlooking the petitioner's employment seniority. The other contentions that the petitioner was not furnished with a selection list, despite the orders passed by the authorities under the Right to Information Act, cannot be adjudicated in this Writ Petition, for the reason that, if there is any failure to comply with the directions under the abovesaid Act, the remedy lies elsewhere. News item without supportive documents cannot be acted upon. Reliance can be made to the following decisions. 4. The question of admissibility of the newspaper reports came up for consideration in Samant N.Balkrishna and another Vs. George Fernandez and others reported in 1969 3 SCC 238 at paragraph 26, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows: "A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second hand evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publish it. In this process truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible". 5. The Supreme Court in Lakmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 1988 (3) SCC 319, opined thus: "...We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein". 6. In Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K.Kants reported in 1994(1) SCC 452, the question as to whether mere production of a copy of the newspaper, be treated as proof of the report of the speech (news item) contained therein, came up for consideration. The Apex Court in Paragraph 48 of the Judgment held as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 "Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trail Judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly 'proved' only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publications of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent". 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition to quash the entire selection list for the post of Village Assistant in Virudhunagar District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar (P & A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1. The District Employment Officer Virudhunagar District Virudhunagar 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District 3. The Tahsildar Virudhunagar Taluk Virudhunagar District +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader , SR.No. 26406 vsg W.P.(MD).No.8701 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 04.08.2011 TR : 17.08.2011: 4p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/