Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, when the petitioner applied to the post of Reserve Conductor in response to Exhibit P1 notification issued by the second respondent, after due selection process, his name was short listed in Exhibit P2 Rank List with Rank No.4868. Since the list came into effect from 09.05.2013, in course of time, the petitioner was also served with an advice memo, dated 05.09.2013.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent corporation called the candidates with the advice numbers between 3809 and 5363 for training session before the fourth respondent from 12.12.2014, but despite the petitioner's rank of 4868, he was omitted from the list of candidates to be trained. On that count, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent has submitted that there is no denial of the petitioner's, but the corporation could not send him for training since the second respondent, the Public Service Commission, is yet to send the petitioner's identity particulars. She has further submitted that the corporation already communicated this issue to the P.S.C through letter dated 15.11.2014.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent P.S.C. has submitted that if the respondent corporation has already sent the communication concerning supplying the identity particulars of the petitioner, the Commission will be taking effective steps expeditiously to complete the process of sending the petitioner's identity particulars so that the respondent corporation could send him for training.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that the training was already started on 12.12.2014 and if the petitioner reports at this point of time, he would effectively be loosing his seniority, since he would be placed at the bottom of the list of the present trainees.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Commission has, however, allayed the fears of the petitioner's counsel by submitting that the seniority would be reckoned from the date of advice rather than from the date of training. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation, on her part, has submitted that the respondent corporation is willing to send the petitioner for training on provisional basis without awaiting from the second respondent Commission the petitioner's identity particulars, which can be supplied by the Commission in due course.
8. Recording the above submissions, this Court, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent Corporation to send the petitioner for training on provisional basis without waiting for the identity particulars of the petitioner from the respondent Commission; the respondent Commission, in turn, is directed to complete the process of forwarding identity particulars of the petitioner to the first respondent corporation as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
9. It is further made clear that since the petitioner cannot be faulted for the delay in his attending the training, his belated joining the training shall not affect his seniority in any manner.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE