01Facts
The petitioner applied for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under the Backward Class category and participated in the selection process.
After the respondents published a list of 600 candidates and a final list of 410 selected candidates, the petitioner’s name appeared in neither.
pp. 8–9He challenged the selection list insofar as it included candidates with lower marks than his in the BC quota, seeking his selection.
pp. 8–9The Court examined the selection list filed with the typed set of papers.
p. 902Issues
i.Whether the selection list for Assistant Engineer recruitment was unlawful insofar as it omitted the petitioner while including candidates allegedly having lower marks in the BC quota.
pp. 8–9ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
p. 803Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a writ of certiorarified mandamus challenging the selection list and seeking appointment.
p. 8The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or specific legal test governing the selection; its stated basis for decision was the Court’s finding that the reservation and marks had been properly calculated.
p. 904Reasoning
The Court examined the selection list of 600 candidates and found that the respondents had properly calculated both the reservation and the candidates’ marks before completing and publishing the selection.
p. 9On that basis, it found no illegality in the selection process and rejected the challenge to the petitioner’s exclusion.
p. 905Holding
The Court held that the selection process disclosed no illegality and dismissed the writ petition.
p. 9The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.
p. 9Original Court PDF
M.UDAYASANKARvsTHE CHAIRMAN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
