IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.7.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.7654 OF 2007
1. V.SENTHIL KUMAR
2 V.GANGADHARAN ... Petitioners
Vs
1 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES
CHENNAI 600 002.
2 THE DISTRICT LIBRARY OFFICER
SALEM.
3 P.SELVI
4 M.GOMATHI ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to Pro.Na.Ka.No.4294/04/A, dated 31.10.2005 Pro.Na.K.No.4294/04/A dt 31.10.2005 of the 2nd respondent and Pro.Na.Ka.No.15455/A2/2006 dt 19.12.2006 of the 1st respondent quash the appointments of the respondents 3 and 4 respectively therein as rural librarians and issue consequential directions to appoint the petitioners herein as rural librarians w.e.f. 31.10.2005 with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioners : Mr. M. Ravi
For Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr.V.Jayaprakashnarayanan. AGP
O R D E R
The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the second respondent confirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 19.12.2006 and cancel the appointments of the respondents 3 and 4 as Rural Librarians and issue consequential direction to appoint the petitioners as Rural Librarians with effect from 31.10.2005 with all consequential benefits.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, submitted that even though such a prayer is made in the writ petition, the petitioners are not pressing the prayer to quash the appointments of respondents 3 and 4 and the petitioners will be satisfied, if a direction is issued to respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioners as Rural Librarians notionally with effect from 31.10.2005 within a reasonable time. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is recorded.
3. It is the case of the first petitioner that he belongs to Most Backward Class community and passed B.A. (History) Degree examination and the Certificate course in the Library and Information Science as well as the Diploma course in Co-operation. The first petitioner registered his name in the District Employment Exchange Office, Salem bearing Registration No.11062/94. According to the first petitioner, he was appointed as Librarian in the District Central Library, Salem on daily wage basis and he was selected and joined duty on 25.4.1996. However, he was ousted from service on 26.7.1996. Again he was appointed on daily wage basis from 4.7.1998 to 26.10.1998 and posted at District Central Library, Salem. The first petitioner renewed Employment Registration and the Registration is still in force.
4. It is the case of the second petitioner that he belongs to Backward Class community and passed B.Com., Degree examination and the Certificate course in the Library and Information Science. The second petitioner registered his name in the District Employment Exchange Office, Salem bearing Registration No.13163/93. According to the second petitioner, he was appointed as Librarian in the Branch, Library, Athur on daily wage basis and he was selected and joined duty on 20.3.1997. However, he was ousted from service on 17.6.1997. Again he was appointed on daily wage basis from 1.7.1998 to 24.10.1998 and posted at Branch Library, Athur. The second petitioner renewed Employment Registration with the same seniority.
5. During the subsequent selection, which was to be conducted as per G.O.Ms.No.50, School Education, dated 11.4.2003, the persons should be selected for Rural Librarian on the basis of the Employment Exchange seniority on communal rotation. According to the petitioners, respondents 3 and 4 are their juniors in the Employment Registration seniority still they have been selected and appointed.
6. The petitioners having not been appointed, individual representations were made, which were rejected stating that respondents 1 and 2 conducted interview and based on the interview marks, the petitioners' claim was rejected.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the Government Order clearly states that the selection is to be made only on the basis of the Employment Registration Seniority and communal roaster, respondents 1 and 2 are not justified in not selecting the petitioners, particularly when they have served as Rural Librarians for several months and they are senior enough for selection and therefore, the procedure adopted by respondents 1 and 2 is contrary to the said Government Order.
8. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioners' claim could not be considered based on the Employment Registration seniority alone and the procedure adopted by respondents 1 and 2 is based on performance in interview without giving weightage to the Employment Registration seniority.
9. Taking note of the said fact, while admitting the writ petition, this Court, by order dated 20.4.2007, passed an interim order directing the respondents to keep two posts vacant till the disposal of the main writ petition. The said order was passed, while rejecting the request of the petitioners seeking interim direction to appoint them temporarily as Librarians pending writ petition.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is not stated that the vacancies are not available. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, giving direction to the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners, in the light of the said Government Order giving weightage to the Employment Registration seniority and pass fresh orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
kb
To
1 THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES
CHENNAI 600 002.
2 THE DISTRICT LIBRARY OFFICER
SALEM
