HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR has allowed writ petition-- Candidature cannot be rejected for minor inadvertent errors in application – Hypertechnical approach deprecated – Directions issued to the Staff Selection Commission to appoint petitioner.

-
Moot question: Whether the rejection of candidature solely on the ground of a minor discrepancy in the duration of experience mentioned in the online application and the experience certificate is justified ? Para No. 8 of the Order : The mistake committed by the petitioner, while mentioning the duration of experience, is trivial in nature and the same does not in any manner impact the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Rehabilitation Counsellor... The action of the third respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner solely on the ground of discrepancy in the duration of the experience... appears to be a hypertechnical, thereby frustrating the entire recruitment process Decision: The Honourable Court allowed the writ petition, holding that: 1. The rejection of candidature on such a trivial ground was hypertechnical and arbitrary. 2. The genuineness of the experience certificate was not disputed. 3. The petitioner was the only candidate who appeared for physical verification. 4. The error was inadvertent and did not impact the petitioner's eligibility for the post Thank you, R. Karunanidhi Advocate I have appeared for the Petitioner in this Writ Petition
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order 10.07.2026 03.08.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.7850 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.12436 of 2026 K.Thilagar ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Chairman Staff Selection Commission Block No.12, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003 2.The Regional Director (SR) Staff Selection Commission 2nd Floor, EVK Sampath Building College Road, Chennai-600 006 3.The Director National Career Service Centre for Differently Abled Directorate General of Employment Ministry of Labour and Employment Shram Shakti Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001 ... Respondents

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

-
WHETHER PATTA ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IS A DOCUMENT OF TITLE OR NOT -       R. KARUNANIDHI,                        (Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court)   Introduction:           First I would like to express my gratefulness to the M.M.B.A. for creating an opportunity to write this essay about Patta. This essay is an endeavor to accentuate that the Patta is not a document for title rather it is just a prima facie substantiation to shows the title. A Patta is a legal document issued by the Revenue Authority in the name of the actual owner of a particular land. It also impliedly says that the land does not belong to the Government or any other person but that it belongs to the person in whose name the Patta stands. A Patta land means it is the private property which stands in the...
Read more
-
         CONTRIBUTION OF MADURAI HIGH COURT BENCH IN UPHOLDING THE HUMAN RIGHTS        -  R. KARUNANIDHI               (Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court)  INTRODUCTION          My endeavor in this article is to summon up the verdicts rendered by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Human Rights perspective. I may fail to bring all the contribution done by respected and judges and learned advocates in this compilation. When I was doing my law graduation at Government Law College, the Madras High Court Bench at Madurai was inaugurated on July 24, 2004. The High Court Bench came as a shot in the arm for the litigants in southern districts who otherwise had to travel all the way to Chennai to file cases in the principal seat . I always remember the enormous efforts of advocates and other persons who fought f...
Read more

Employers cannot withhold salary or retirement benefits based on 'no work no pay' when employees is not on fault Photo: Pixabay

-
Image
The Madras High Court, in a recent case hearing, held that it is unlawful to apply the ‘No Work, No Pay’ principle when an employee is not at fault but is prevented from performing office duties. The Madurai bench of the high court ordered the respondents to pay the petitioner (C. Makarand) full retirement benefits and quashed the order passed by the Tahsildar earlier. Brief Background C. Makarand started his service as a Village Thalaiyari of Muthu Nagaiahapuram on March 20, 1983. At the time of joining, he submitted his document, including the date of birth proof. However, in 2015, he realised that his date of birth. It is because his date of birth in the records was January 28, 1958, instead of his actual DoB, which is March 23, 1961. When he applied for correction in the details to authorities, his request was rejected. The reason was that correction is allowed only within five years of joining, and that period has passed. However, in 2015, he received a favourable order from a ...
Read more