N CHINNAPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined as Apprentice Lab. Chemist in Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills on 20. 01. 1971 and transferred to Ambur co-operative Sugar Mills Limited and completed the Apprenticeship by 06. 01. 1972 and thereafter he was appointed as Lab Chemist on 07. 01. 1972 in Dharmapuri Sugar Mills and worked till 17. 10. 1974. In the meantime, he secured Sugar Technology Course Certificate from the National Sugar Institute, Kanpur and then served in various capacities in various Sugar Mills and it is stated as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_45_TLMAD0_2007Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that still he is continuing as Chief Chemist in Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills. In February 1998 an advertisement was issued by the Chairperson and Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Limited for the appointment of Chief Sugar Chemist in the Corporation. As the petitioner possessed all the requisite qualifications and the experience stipulated in the advertisement, he has applied for the post of Chief Sugar Chemist in the second respondent Corporation and the results were announced after the interview on 17. 07. 1998 and the Assistant Manager (Administration) read out the marks obtained by the candidates as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_45_TLMAD0_2007Html2.htm</FRM> The petitioner stood number two in the merit and the third respondent secured more marks in the written examination as well as in the oral.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent has not acquired the stipulated experience as stated in the advertisement for the appointment. The Selection Committee has no power to relax the required experience period stipulated in the advertisement and allowed the third respondent herein to participate in the interview and that his subsequent selection is not proper. It is stated that the required experience as Chief Chemist of a running Sugar Factory of minimum Crushing Capacity of 1250 T. C. D. and also 15 years experience is required and the third respondent is lacking the said experience and he should not have been allowed to attend the interview.