An Ineligible Candidate Is A “Stranger”, Cannot Challenge Recruitment Procedure: Madras process Reiterates

An Ineligible Candidate Is A “Stranger”, Cannot Challenge Recruitment Procedure: Madras process Reiterates

The Madras HC 25 January 2023 on reiterated that a candidate who is unqualified to participate in a recruitment procedure is a stranger to such procedure and can’t confront the nominations made therein. Justice Abdul Quddhose therefore dismissed the plea of a sanitation worker who had confronted the nominations of candidates as Junior Assistants in Coimbatore Corporation. This was seen in the matter of Eswari v. Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Case No: W.P.No.27298 of 2021 the matter was presided over by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose.


The petitioner being unqualified to apply for the post of Junior Assistant, as per the recruitment notice issued by the 6th  respondent Corporation, is not an aggrieved person, but, is a stranger to the selection procedure. Hence, she can’t legally maintain a Writ Petition, seeking to confront the nominations of the respondent Nos.7 to 60 to the post of Junior Assistants by the sixth respondent Corporation.

The court noted that the petitioner was thirty-eight years old at the time of recruitment. As per the recruitment notice, the age eligibility was between 18 to 35 years for the aspirants hailing from the SC/Arunthathiyar/ST community. Therefore, the petitioner, having crossed the age limit, could not make an application for the post of Junior Assistant as per the recruitment notice.

The petitioner confronted the manner in which the recruitment procedure was carried out. It was submitted that the nominations were carried out clandestinely by not giving wide publicity and by not adhering to the rules & procedures required to be followed for public nominations.


The court relied on the determination of the SC in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed wherein the court had held that a stranger who is not an aggrieved person can’t maintain a writ of certiorari or mandamus. The court also noted that In Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar it was clearly held that a person who is not eligible for consideration for appointment at the relevant point of time has no right to question the nominations since he is not an aggrieved person.

Therefore, holding that the petitioner did not have the locus standi to maintain the petition, the court noted that only such persons who had applied for the post of Junior Assistant and were unsuccessful had the legal right to confront the recruitment procedure. As a result, the petition was dismissed.

 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to read complete judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *