IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 26.04.2011 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.RAJA Writ Petition Nos.1969, 2876 & 2942 to 2945 of 2011 and M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 T.Lenin ... Petitioner in WP No.1969 of 2011 R. Sivaperumal ... Petitioner in WP No.2876 of 2011 S. Andichamy ... Petitioner in WP No.2942 of 2011 B. Palanisamy ... Petitioner in WP No.2943 of 2011 R. Sathish ... Petitioner in WP No.2944 of 2011 P. Ramachandran ... Petitioner in WP No.2945 of 2011 vs. 1.The Commissioner for Agriculture, Office of Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Director of Employment and Training Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ...Respondents 1 & 2 in all 3.The Joint Director of Agriculture Department, Mannarkudi High Road, Trichy. 4.The District Employment Officer, The Employment and Training Dept., Ariyalur. ... Respondents 3 & 4 in W.P.1969/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Joint Director of Agriculture Department Villupuram The District Employment Officer Employment and Training Department Ulunthurpet ...RR3 and 4 in W.P.No.2876/2011 The Joint Director of Agriculture Department Mannarkudi High Road, Dindigul The District Employment Officer Employment and Training Department Dindigul ...Respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.2942/11 The Joint Director of Agriculture Department Trichy High Road, Salem The District Employment Officer Employment and Training Department Krishnagiri ...Respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.2943/11 The Joint Director of Agriculture Department Mannarkudi High Road, Trichy The District Employment Officer Employment and Training Department Ariyalur ...Respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.2944/11 The Joint Director of Agriculture Department Mannarkudi High Road, Trichy The District Employment Officer Employment and Training Department Dindigul ...Respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.No.2944/11 Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as stated therein. For petitioners : Mr.G.Ethirajulu for Mr.M.Ganesan For respondents : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions, seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from making any appointment for the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer without allowing the petitioners to attend the interview and following 1:5 ratio as contemplated under G.O. Ms. No.18, Labour and Employment (N2) Department, dated 25.02.2008. 2. Inasmuch as the prayer made in all the above writ petitions is one and the same and the issue is interconnected, the matters are heard together and disposed of by this Common Order. 3. The petitioners herein, after completion of the Agricultural course pursued by them, had included the Specialty in their respective enrollments with the District Employment Exchange concerned during the year 2009 and 2010. From the Newspaper Publication dated 21.09.2010, it came to be known that the 1st respondent had proposals to fill up 995 posts of Assistant Agricultural Officer all over the State of Tamil Nadu in the Department of Agriculture. The 2nd respondent-Director of Employment and Training Department at Guindy was to sponsor candidates to the post in question. The petitioners, who are eligible to be considered and appointed to the said post, approached the Employment Exchange. After verification of the documents by the Exchange, the petitioners were told that they would receive the Interview Cards shortly. The petitioners were under the bona fide impression that they would be receiving the Interview Cards as and when the formalities are over. On coming to know that some other candidates received the Interview Cards, the petitioners often approached the authorities, but in vain. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the authorities wrongfully deprived them of their lawful opportunity to participate in the interview by purposely not issuing the Interview Cards and further, 1:5 ratio as prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.18 dated 25.02.2008 has not been adhered to. In such circumstances, highlighting the claim that some of the juniors of the petitioners were issued with Interview Cards while others have already been appointed, it is prayed that this Court may issue a mandamus as sought for by the petitioners. 4. Mr.G.Ethirajulu, at the first instance, arguing the case of Mr.T.Lenin-petitioner in W.P. No.1969 of 2011, would submit that the respondents totally ignored to apply G.O. Ms. No.18, dated 25.02.2008, which prescribes adherence to 1:5 ratio in the appointment of Assistant Agricultural Officers and thereby, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners, who would come within the zone of consideration of appointment, are very unfairly excluded to favour certain candidates, who do not even fulfill the criterion as specified in the G.O. According to him, some of the candidates were issued with Interview Cards and they are much juniors to the petitioners in terms of enrollment with the Employment Exchange. Learned counsel elaborated his line of submission by stating that very conveniently, the respondents have not mentioned as to what is the cut-off date on which they proceeded to issue the Interview Cards calling upon the incumbents for the post. Therefore, it could be easily discerned that without following the G.O. aforementioned and without following the 1:5 ratio as prescribed therein, appointments are being made in contravention to the mode and scheme envisaged in the Government Order. In such a circumstance, if the respondents are allowed to proceed further, the petitioners will not be in a position to participate in the interview and they will be unduly deprived of what they are legally entitled to. So submitting, learned counsel pleads for grant of the prayer sought for. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, by filing a detailed counter-affidavit, submitted that, in the process of appointing candidates, in letter and spirit, G.O. Ms. No.18, dated 25.02.2008, is being followed scrupulously. In fact, the 2nd respondent-Director of Employment and Training Department finalized the State-Level Consolidated Seniority List for the post in question only in the ratio of 1:5 as prescribed in the aforesaid Government Order and the cut-off dates finalized for nomination for the post is drawn thus:- a) For SC Non-Priority Candidates : Upto 18.07.2006 b) For MBC Non-priority Candidates : Upto 13.03.2006 c) For B.C. Non-priority Candidates : Upto 17.10.2001 d) For O.C. Non-priority Candidates : Upto 12.01.2009 Contrasting the case of petitioner-Lenin with the aforesaid criterion pertaining to the cut-off date relevant to him in terms of the community category he belongs to, learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner falling under B.C. Non- Priority Category, for whom the cut-off date finalized is 17.10.2001, whereas, the date of enrollment/seniority of the candidate is 28.01.2009. Therefore, according to her, when the petitioner is not even coming within the purview of selection, there is no point at all in arguing that the G.O. in question is not adhered to and in making an allegation that the 2nd respondent did not recommend the name of the petitioner to the first respondent for the post. 6. As regards petitioners in W.P. Nos.2876 and 2942 to 2945 of 2011 viz., S.Sivaperumal, S.Andichamy, B.Palanisamy, R.Sathish, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.Ramachandran, it is pointed out that their date of enrollment is 24.08.2009, 17.03.2009, 27.01.2009, 06.08.2009 & 05.02.2010, and the community category they belong to being MBC, SC, MBC, BC and SC respectively, none of them comes within the zone of consideration in terms of the cut-off date finalized as per the Government Order against each category. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, by referring to the additional affidavit filed by him, that even though it is the stand of the respondents that the entire process continues only in terms of the G.O., some of the batch-mates of the petitioners by name, a) L.Pechaiappan (OC – non priority) : Enrollment date- 21.11.2008, b) B.Madhan (BC – non priority) : enrollment date-not known, c) S.Manojkumar (BC – non priority) : Enrollment date- 11.10.2009, d) Kumaresan (SC – non priority) : Enrollment date-11.10.2008, e) K.Yogendhiran (SC – non priority) : Enrollment date- 03.01.2009, f) A.Selvakumar (BC – non priority) : Enrollment date-not known, g) E.Kumaresan (MBC – non priority) : Enrollment date – not known, h) A. Marimuthu (SC – non priority) –:Enrollment date- 10.11.2008 and i) Thanajalian (MBC – non priority) : Enrollment date-12.01.2009, have been appointed as Assistant Agricultural Officers despite the fact that they do not meet the criterion of seniority in terms of the cut-off date fixed as per the G.O., therefore, the petitioners, who are all senior to those individuals, should be given appointment as Assistant Agricultural Officer. 8. This Court, after considering the rival submissions advanced on either side and carefully perusing the materials produced, may hasten to add that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to make out a case that G.O. Ms. No.18, dated 25.02.2008, has not been followed in the process of appointment, whereas, from the counter affidavit filed, this Court finds that a State Level Consolidated Seniority List was finalized by the 2nd respondent in strict adherence to the ratio of 1:5 with due relevance to the above extracted cut-off dates against each communal category as stipulated in the G.O., and on examining the case of the petitioners in that perspective, it is apparent that none of them falls within the zone of consideration to pass any order in their favour. Secondly, though by way of Additional typed set, the petitioner has pointed out some of the juniors, who also do not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fall within the zone of consideration, were appointed, it must be made clear that this Court cannot act upon those details without any substantive proof to convince that actually, there was violation of the G.O. by the respondents. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the petitioners could not produce a copy of any interview card or appointment order issued to such individuals to substantiate his case. Thus, there being no valid reason or ground to entertain the case of the petitioners, the prayer sought for cannot be granted. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of any merit. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. JI. To 1.The Commissioner for Agriculture, Office of Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The Director of Employment and Training Department, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. 3.The Joint Director of Agriculture Department, Mannarkudi High Road, Trichy. 4.The District Employment Officer, The Employment and Training Dept., Ariyalur. 5. The Joint Director of Agriculture Department Mannarkudi High Road, Dindigul https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The District Employment Officer Employment and Training Department Dindigul 7. The Joint Director of Agriculture Department Trichy High Road, Salem 8.The District Employment Officer Employment and Training Department Krishnagiri 9. The Joint Director of Agriculture Department Villupuram 10.The District Employment Officer Employment and Training Department Ulunthurpet 1 cc to government Pleader, Sr. 29158 1 cc to M/s. M. Ganeshan, Sr. 29487 1 cc to M/s.M. Ganeshan, Sr. 29486, 29485, 29484, 29483, 29488 Nos.1969 of 2011, etc. RV (CO) kk 12/5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/