AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 2 Respondents.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, a counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the said counter affidavit reads as follows:
It is submitted that this Respondents after verification of her application and certificates filed by the Petitioner along with the application called the Petitioner for Physical Fitness test. She was qualified in the said test as she had scored 5 marks and she was called for the Written Test. This Petitioner secured 35 marks in the Written Test. As she got qualified in the Written Test she was called for viva voce in which she secured 6.25 and in total she secured 46.25 marks, against the cut off marks of 50.00 for BC Community to which she belongs. Hence she was not selected.
It is submitted that reservation for the wards of the Police and Ministerial staff of Police Department during the above recruitment could not be made as a case was filed by one M. Senthil Kumar which was pending in Hon''ble Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and later in this Hon''ble High Court. No candidate was then selected under 10% reserved quota for wards.
In view of the statements made in the said paragraphs that no candidate had been selected under 10% reserved quota for wards, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No cost.