IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 30-07-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.29617 of 2006 O.A.No.5470 of 1996 S.Balamurugan .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Madras-600 029. 2.Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Madras-8. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to send the applicant for eye-test to any specialist at Eye-Hospital, Egmore, Madras-8, for re-examination and if he founds fit consequently direct the 1st respondent to give appointment to the applicant as Grade II Police Constable. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kalaiselvan For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had stated that he had attended the selection for the post of Grade II Police Constable, conducted by the Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ herein, on 11.1.96. The petitioner had been selected in the physical test, as well as in the written test conducted by the first respondent Board. However, he was declared unfit based on the eye test conducted on him. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 17.9.96, for conducting a re-examination of his eye sight by any other specialist in the eye hospital, Egmore, Madras. Since the request of the petitioner had not been considered, he had filed an original application before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5470 of 1996, which has been transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.29617 of 2006. 3. No reply affidavit has been field on behalf of the respondents. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.9.96, made to the first respondent is directed to be disposed of, on merits, within a specified time. 5. On a perusal of the records available before this Court and on considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that even though the petitioner is said to have been selected both in the physical test and in the written test conducted by the first respondent Board for the selection of the candidates to the post of Grade II Police Constable, he was not found to be fit for being selected based on the eye test conducted on him. However, the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 17.9.96, to the first respondent requesting for a re-examination of his eye sight. 6. Even though it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it would suffice if this Court is pleased to direct the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.9.96, on merits, within a specified period, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by such an order being passed by this Court. Conducting a re- examination of the petitioner's eye sight after a lapse of nearly 12 years, from the date of the submission of the representation by the petitioner would not be in the interest of justice. Such a direction issued by this Court would only result in the negation of the established procedures being followed by the first respondent Board in recruiting candidates to the police service. Even assuming that the result of the re-examination of his eye sight would be in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner would stand disqualified as he would be beyond the age limit prescribed for such selection, in accordance with the rules applicable to such selection. Therefore, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there cannot be an automatic selection of the petitioner, without the petitioner satisfying the other requirements necessary for being recruited as a Grade II Police Constable. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar csh To 1.The Chairman, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Madras-600 029. 2.Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Madras-8. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.41598 Writ Petition No.29617 of 2006 BS (CO) SMK/11.8.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/