1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05/09/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition (MD)No.9906 of 2011 M.Rajasekar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, District Elementary Education Office, Sivagangai. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Assistant Elementary Education Office, S.Pudur, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent not to declare the name of the petitioner from the panel for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster for the year 2011 without following due process of law and further direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the counseling for the post of Middle School Headmaster. For petitioner ...Mr.D.Sadiq Raja For respondents ...Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate O R D E R Seeking for a mandamus directing the District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai, the first respondent herein, not to delete his name from the panel for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster for the year 2011, without following the due process of law and for a direction to the said respondent, to permit the petitioner to participate in the counseling, for the post of Middle school Headmaster, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of 10th Standard in the year 1981, he had studied Diploma in Teacher Education in the year 1988, which is a two year course. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Subsequently, he had completed his Master of Arts in Tamil in 2007 at Annamalai University. He has also completed Bachelor of Tamil (double degree) in the year 2009, from the same University. Earlier on 07.10.1996, he was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher at Panchayat Union elementary School, P.Ayyapatti, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District, through Employment Exchange. Currently, he is been working as a Headmaster in Panchayat Union Primary School, Kattukudipatti. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the District Elementary Educational Officer, the first respondent herein, drew a panel for the year 2010 for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster as well as Tamil Pandit. His name was included at S.No.4 in the said panel. Three persons were promoted to the post of Middle School Headmaster. Subsequently another panel was drawn for the year 2011 for the promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster as well as for the post of Tamil Pandit. This time also, the name of the petitioner was placed at S.No.2. Instead of promoting the petitioner to the post of Headmaster, the District Elementary Educational Officer, the first respondent herein, by referring to a proceeding, informed the petitioner that since he had not completed +2, his name would be deleted from the panel. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a representation, dated 22.07.2011, to the first respondent, not to delete his name from the panel, since he possessed the required qualification for the post of Middle School Headmaster. As counseling for the post of Middle School Headmaster is about to be commenced, he has come up with the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 4. In addition to the above pleadings, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.Govindaraju Vs. K.S.R.T.C. and another reported in CDJ 1986 SC 095 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the name of the petitioner is included in the selection list, removal cannot be done without providing an opportunity. 5. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents also. 6. Pleadings and material on record shows that though the petitioner has been included in the panel for the post of Middle School Headmaster/Tamil Pandit in the year 2010-11, by a proceeding in Rc.No.1930/A3/2011 dated 20.07.2011, the name of the petitioner has been directed to be deleted, on the ground that he has not studied higher secondary course. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved over the said order, dated 20.07.2011, the remedy available to the petitioner is only to challenge the said decision and he cannot seek for any mandamus, restraining the authorities from considering the rules and directions issued by the Government or the Head of the Departments from time, to time applicable to the post of Headmaster or B.T.Assistant (Tamil). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. It is a well settled proposition of law that mere inclusion in the panel would not confer any right to seek for promotion. In Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India reported in (1991 (3) SCC 47), the Supreme Court, at paragraph 7, held that, "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chandra Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab." 8.In Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Malkia Singh reported in (2005 (9) SCC 22), the Apex Court held that mere inclusion in the selection list does not confer any vested right to get an opportunity. In Union of India and Others Vs. Kalidass Batish and Another reported in (2006 (1) SCC 779), at para 15 of the judgment, the same legal position has been reiterated that "mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the selection list gave him no right, and if there was no right, there could be no occasion to maintain a writ petition for enforcement of a non-existing right." Once again, the Supreme Court expressed the same view in Aryavrat Gramin Bank Vs. Vijay Shankar Shukla reported in (2007 (12) SCC 413). 9. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of this case. For the abovesaid reasons, the mandamus sought for, cannot be issued and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, District Elementary Education Office, Sivagangai. 2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Assistant Elementary Education Office, S.Pudur, Thirupathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. +1 CC to Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Advocate (SR.No.29943) Writ Petition No.9906 of 2011 05.09.2011 RR/MPK NSV/9.9.11/4P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/