V. SURENDRA MOHAN vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 48

ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M.JOSEPH
V. SURENDRA MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR, for the Appellant; Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Adv. Mr. S. Vinayak, Adv. Mr. Narmatha Meenakshi Sundaram, Adv. Mr. K. Mayil Samy, Adv. Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR Mr. K.S. Mahadevan, Adv. Mr. Krishnakumar R.S., Adv. Mr. Deva Vrat Anand, Adv. Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. K. V. Vijayakumar, AOR Mr. R. Naveen Raj, Adv. Ms. Purbitaa Mitra, Adv., for the State.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of Madras High Court dated 05.06.2015 dismissing his writ petition has come up in this appeal. The appellant appeared in selection for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) under partially blind category.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:

After enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1995”) the State of Tamil Nadu vide GO dated 11.04.2005 has identified 117 categories of posts as most suitable in A and B groups in direct recruitment. Item No.102 of the above list of posts identified under group A and B was to the following effect:

"LIST OF POSTS IDENTIFIED UNDER GROUP A & B CATEGORIES

S.No.

Name of Post and Department

Physical requirements

Categories of disabled persons suitable for the job

Group

102

Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division/ Judicial MagistrateFirst Class)

S/ST/W/SE/H/RW

PB/PD/ORTHO

A

3. The Government of Tamil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

M. Sameeha Barvin VS Joint Secretary, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India, New Delhi - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2607: This case indicates bad law treatment. It explicitly states that the Supreme Court in Surendra Mohan (2019) 4 SCC 237 "had an opportunity to consider the correctness of the judgment in V.Surendra Mohan v State of Tamil Nadu [(2019) 4 SCC 237]", where a two-judge bench "had confirmed the" decision. The phrasing implies subsequent judicial scrutiny questioning or reconsidering the original holding, marking it as potentially overruled or treated negatively.

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur VS Neetu Harsh - Supreme Court (2019): Treated positively; states "(2019) 4 SCC 237 would be apposite" and relies on it for validity of rules in a similar judicial recruitment context.

Prabhu Kumar VS State of Himachal Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(HP) 601: Cited descriptively as precedent on "legality of ... of Tamil Nadu after consultation with the High Court" and TNPSC issues, indicating reliance.

Vikash Kumar VS Union Public Service Commission - 2021 4 Supreme 330: Cited as directly relevant precedent ("Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 SCC 237") on TNPSC's visual impairment ceiling decision.

Geeta Ram VS State Of Himachal & Ors. - 2021 0 Supreme(HP) 329: Quoted approvingly ("it was held: '5(a)'") and applied to direct state government instructions, showing followership.

Ankur Manna VS State Of West Bengal - 2022 0 Supreme(Cal) 1230: Referred to as "Surendra Mohan case [ V. Surendra Mohan v. State of T.N.]" in context of state quota seats, indicating positive citation.

State Of Karnataka, Reptd. by Its Prl. Secretary To Govt. , Department Of School Education & Literacy VS Ms. Latha H. N. , D/o. Nagaraju, W/o. Venkatesh T. S. - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 521: Cited as precedent ("SURENDRA MOHAN v. STATE OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS, (2019) 4 SCC 237") considered by Apex Court, with no negative language.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY v/s MS. LATHA H N - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 36020: Treated as establishing precedent ("The case establishes that nearly blind individuals can be appointed to judicial positions"), positive reliance.

State Of Bihar VS Bal Mukund Sah - 2000 2 Supreme 409: Summarizes constitutional principles on judicial appointments (e.g., Articles 233/234), Bihar reservation act; no language indicating treatment of this or other cases (e.g., no keywords like followed/overruled).

Union of India VS National Federation of the Blind - 2013 7 Supreme 129: States general rule on disability reservation as horizontal; no citation to specific cases or treatment indicators.

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam) Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Kumbakonam VS P. Karuppaiah - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 1688: Ambiguous; cites "(2019) 4 SCC 237 is relevant" alongside a Division Bench judgment, but fragment ends mid-sentence ("paragraphs 23 and"). Lacks clear treatment keyword; could be positive citation, but incompleteness warrants uncertainty.

S.No.	Name of Post and Department	Physical requirements	Categories of disabled persons suitable for the job	Group
102	Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division/ Judicial MagistrateFirst Class)	S/ST/W/SE/H/RW	PB/PD/ORTHO	A

2019 Supreme(SC) 48

ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M.JOSEPHV. SURENDRA MOHAN – AppellantVersusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M.JOSEPH
V. SURENDRA MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent