[Public Employments] Can appointments be claimed as a matter of absolute right? Madras HC unfolds

Madras High Court: S.M. Subramaniam, J., observed that, equal opportunities in public employment is the Constitutional mandate.

Several petitions were instituted for a direction to appoint the petitioners as Field Assistant (Trainee) pursuant to the results published based on Notification dated 28th February 2016 and as officially there were 2,900 vacancies as per notification dated 19th March, 2020.

In the present case, admittedly, the writ petitioners had participated in the process of selection for the year 2016 and they were not within the zone of consideration for appointment.

Analysis and Decision

High Court opined that appointment can never be claimed as a matter of absolute right and appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.

The Bench stated that whenever a decision is taken for recruitment, the competent authorities are bound to follow the recruitment rules in force by providing equal opportunities to all the candidates who all are aspiring for securing public employment.

Elaborating further, Court held that, the selection process to the post of Field Assistant was to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and selection of the year 2016 could not be considered after a lapse of six years, more specifically, for the purpose of issuing a direction to appoint the petitioner as Field Assistants.

Petitioners were not selected and appointed pursuant to their participation during the year 2016.

Hence, the petitioners could not establish any right for the purpose of granting the relief of appointment.

Further, the petitioners were not within the zone of consideration during the year 2016 and the selected 900 persons were appointed and thereafter no recruitment was conducted for the purpose of filing up the post of Field Assistant.

“…public institutions are expected to act in accordance with law in such circumstances where the Gangmen are utilized to perform the duties of wiremen, electricians, etc.”

Lastly, it was concluded that the petitioners were at liberty to participate in the process of selection for appointment. [Thanadeelvi Mary v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation, WP Nos. 13321, 13324, 13325, 13327, 13328, 13329, 13330, 13335, 13343 and 13344 of 2022, decided on 25-5-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For Petitioners: Mr. A.E. Chelliah, Senior Advocate For M/s. C. Vasanthakumari Chelliah

For Respondents: Mr. P. Subramanian For TANGEDCO in all writ petitions

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.