Libertatem Magazine

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Managing Directors of Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

Contents of this Page

Facts of the Case

The Respondents, the Managing Director & The Manager (Administration) of Pondicherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd, had issued a notification pursuant to which the petitioner had applied for the post of Conductor. Pursuant to this notification, the respondents invited applications from suitable candidates in 2005. The petitioner applied for the appointment of the post of Conductor on a daily wage basis to the Respondents on 14.09.2005. 

His application was processed and on the same, a memorandum of communication was issued by the respondents on 10.10.2005 instructing the petitioner to appear for certificate verification on 19.10.2005 at 9.30 a.m. He was instructed to bring certificates like- Certificate relating to Educational and Technical Qualification, Birth Certificate, Caste/Community Certificate, Experience Certificate & Employment Exchange Registration Card. 

The Petitioner claimed that certificate verification was completed, however, he was not called up further for action, and no posting or appointment order had been given. 

Arguments Before the Court

The counsel for the Petitioner submitted the relevant affidavits consonant with the facts at hand. 

The counsel for the Respondents submitted that one of the important certificates is experience certificate. It means that the person must have two-year experience in plying or driving a heavy vehicle with a token and that was one of the rules which required the experience of two years. However, the counsel argued that the experience certificate obtained by the Petitioner was the recent one or latest one obtained in the year 2005 itself. Therefore, it did not disclose that the Petitioner is having the required experience of two years, which is one of the essential qualifications for consideration of his candidature to be appointed as Conductor on a daily wage basis.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that the two-year experience certificate is one of the necessary qualifications. Thus, the certificate must be produced for the satisfaction of the authorities. 

The Court noted that the experience certificate produced by the Petitioner was obtained in 2005. It fails to disclose that the Petitioner has the required experience. 

The Court further noted that no such experience certificate having two-year experience claimed to have been produced by the petitioner at the time of certificate verification, has not been filed before the Court either at the time of filing the writ petition or thereafter to substantiate the contention of the petitioner.

Court’s Decision

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition. 


Click here to read the judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author