The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.02.2014 and subsequently, appoint the petitioner to the post of Technical Assistant based on the interview, which was held on 08.11.2013.
2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner is a qualified candidate for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant and his name was sponsored through the Employment Exchange and accordingly, the writ petitioner had received call letter to participate in the interview. Pursuant to the call letter, the writ petitioner participated in the interview, which was held on 08.11.2013 by the second respondent. However, the writ petitioner was not selected and no order of appointment was issued to him. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that in view of the wrong assessment of the final year marks of the writ petitioner, the petitioner had lost his opportunity of getting appointment. Thus, the respondents are responsible for not assessing the marks promptly. However, the writ petitioner is unable to substantiate any illegality or irregularity in the process of selection. Any selection process shall be questioned by way of writ petition if there is a malpractice or corrupt activities or any violation of Statutory Rules. In the absence of any such allegations which have to be substantiated, no writ petition would lie in respect of the selection process. The writ petitioner claims appointment based on his participation in the interview, which was held on 08.11.2013. Mere participation in the interview or process of selection cannot be a ground to seek a direction for appointment.
3.Appointment itself can never be claimed as a matter of right, and even the selection will not confer any right on a candidate. The right will accrue only on receipt of order of appointment from the appointing authority concerned. Thus mere participation of the writ petitioner in the interview, which was held on 08.11.2013 will not confer any right to seek a direction for appointment. The Writ petitioner has not established any illegality or irregularity in the process of selection. This apart, after a lapse of four years from the date of interview, this Court cannot consider the relief as such sought for in this writ petition to direct the respondents to provide appointment to the writ petitioner for the post of Technical Assistant. Hence no further adjudication is required on merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
4. The writ petitioner is at liberty to participate in the open competition process by submitting his application and get selected for the public employment in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force.
08.11.2017 dn To
1. The Chief Engineer(Personal), Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., No.144, Annasalai, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Chief Engineer/Distribution Trichy Region/ TANGEDCO, Post Box No.704, Thennur, Trichy-620 020.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
dn W.P. No.6183 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 08.11.2017 W.P.No.21664 of 2012 V.PARTHIBAN.J., It is represented that against the similar order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, W.A.No.528 of 2016 has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. In the above said writ appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has granted interim stay of the order passed by the learned single Judge.
2. In view of the above, the present writ petition shall await the decision in the above writ appeal filed by the Pollution Control Board.
3. Hence, this writ petition is adjourned sine die.
13.11.2017 dn