W.P.No.25055 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.No.25055 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 Mr.S.Kumaresan ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by 1. The Commissioner of Revenue, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 3. The District Employment Office, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 5. The Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the fifth respondent vidxe Na.Ka.A3/00907/2012 for the post of Village Assistant, Chengam Taluk by way of which two interviews were conducted on 04.06.2012and 31.07.2012 and quash the same https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25055 of 2012 and direct the fifth respondent and appoint this petitioner for the post of Village Assistant. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Balamurugan For Respondent : Mr.P.Ganesan, Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for the post of 'Village Assistant'. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the his name was not sponsored for the said post in response to the requisition made by the Respondent No.5 and without sponsoring the name of the petitioner, interviews were conducted on 31.07.2012 for the post of 'Village Assistant'. 3. The Respondent No.5 filed a counter-affidavit as early as in the year 2013, specifically stating in Paragraph No.13 of the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner was called for interview for the same post on 04.06.2012 and he was found to be not possessing the required mandatory qualifications for the post of 'Village Assistant' and therefore, he was not selected. 4. No reply or re-joinder affidavit is filed in response of the said https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25055 of 2012 averment made in the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 in Paragraph No.13. 5. If that be the case, the question of sponsoring the name of the petitioner by the Employment Exchange once again for the interviews that were held on 31.07.2012 for the same post does not arise. Even assuming that the Employment Exchange has committed mistake in not sponsoring the name of the petitioner for the post of 'Village Assistant', the same would not make any difference, as the petitioner was stated to be not possessing the required qualification for the post of 'Village Assistant'. 6. In the circumstances, this court does not find any reason to entertain this writ petition on the ground of non-sponsoring the name of the petitioner for the post of 'Village Assistant'. 7. Further, it is also noticed from the material on record and the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, the post of 'Village Assistant', for which the petitioner is making a claim was already filled in by appointing other eligible candidates and no challenge is made to such selection and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25055 of 2012 appointment and the selected candidates were also not made parties to the present writ petition. Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25055 of 2012 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. skr 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. 24.01.2025 skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No W.P.No.25055 of 2012 To 1. The Commissioner of Revenue, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2. The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 3. The District Employment Office, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. 5. The Tahsildar, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis