27 Jan 2023 9:00 AM GMT
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a candidate who is ineligible to participate in a recruitment process is a stranger to such process and cannot challenge the appointments made therein.Justice Abdul Quddhose thus dismissed the plea of a sanitation worker who had challenged the appointments of candidates as Junior Assistants in Coimbatore Corporation.The petitioner being ineligible...
The Madras High Court recently reiterated that a candidate who is ineligible to participate in a recruitment process is a stranger to such process and cannot challenge the appointments made therein.
Justice Abdul Quddhose thus dismissed the plea of a sanitation worker who had challenged the appointments of candidates as Junior Assistants in Coimbatore Corporation.
The petitioner being ineligible to apply for the post of Junior Assistant, as per the recruitment notification issued by the sixth respondent Corporation, is not an aggrieved person, but, is a stranger to the selection process. Hence, she cannot legally maintain a Writ Petition, seeking to challenge the appointments of the respondent Nos.7 to 60 to the post of Junior Assistants by the sixth respondent Corporation.
The court noted that the petitioner was thirty-eight years old at the time of recruitment. As per the recruitment notification, the age eligibility was between 18 to 35 years for the aspirants hailing from the SC/Arunthathiyar/ST community. Thus, the petitioner, having crossed the age limit, could not make an application for the post of Junior Assistant as per the recruitment notification.
The petitioner challenged the manner in which the recruitment process was carried out. It was submitted that the appointments were carried out clandestinely by not giving wide publicity and by not adhering to the rules and procedures required to be followed for public appointments.
The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed wherein the court had held that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person cannot maintain a writ of certiorari or mandamus. The court also noted that in Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar it was clearly held that a person who is not eligible for consideration for appointment at the relevant point of time has no right to question the appointments since he is not an aggrieved person.
Thus, holding that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to maintain the petition, the court noted that only such persons who had applied for the post of Junior Assistant and were unsuccessful had the legal right to challenge the recruitment process. As a result, the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Eswari v. Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 31
Case No: W.P.No.27298 of 2021