SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Mad) 3000

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.P. SHAH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Dr. A. Rajapandian - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Department of Animal Husbandry & Others - Respondents
W.P.Nos.37308, 37310, 37043, 37098, 37148, 37149, 37169, 37170, 37178, 37187, 37188, 37191, 37192, 37194, 37197, 37224, 37227, 37228, 37229, 37230, 37232, 37234, 37237, 37239, 37282, 37283 of 2005
Decided On : 07 November 2006

Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for U.M. Ravichandran, H.S. Mahoamed Rafi, M. Velmurugan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Raja Kalifulla, Government Pleader, R2 & R3, R. Sureshkumar, Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.

Rejection of application for non-production of Veterinary Council Registration Certificate not justified.

Headnote:Service Law-Appointment-Post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons-For not signing OMR Application petitioners application rejected-Due to such omission particulars furnished rendered unauthentic-Held, Public Service Commission justified in rejecting the application-However, rejection on ground of non-production of VCRC not justified.

Judgment :-

(Petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to process the petitioners' applications for the written examination and oral test for selection of the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Direct Recruitment) in the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Services for the year 2005-06.)

Common Order:

A.P. Shah, C.J.

As these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. In August, 2005, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission') invited applications in respect of appointments to the post of 'Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Direct Recruitment) in the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Services for the year 2005-06. The total number of vacancies specified in the notification was 250. Clause 6 of the Notification prescribed the following qualifications:

"6. QUALIFICATION:

Candidate should possess the following or its equivalent qualification on the date of the Notification viz. 05-08-2005:

B.V.Sc. Degree of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grant; and

Must be a Registered Practitioner within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Registration of Veterinary Practitioners Act 1957 (Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1957)

... ... ..."

Clause 12 of the Notification enumerated the list of enclosures to be sent along with the application. It was further informed that the selection will be made in two successive stages, viz. written examination and oral test in the shape of an interview. The total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and oral test will be taken together for making the final selection subject to the rule of reservation. The last date for submission of the filled up application was fixed as 9th September, 2005 and the date of written examination was fixed as 20th November, 2005.

3. With reference to the above notification, 1390 candidates had applied to the Commission for this direct recruitment. Out of 1390 applications, a total number of 942 candidates were found eligible to take up the examination for the recruitment and the applications of 448 candidates were found liable for rejection for one or other reasons and therefore rejected.

4. The present petitioners, who are 154 in number, either apprehending rejection of their applications or whose applications have been rejected, have filed these petitions seeking a direction to the Commission to process their applications for the written examination and oral test for selection of the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Direct Recruitment) in the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Services for the year 2005-06.

5. By interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners were permitted to write the examination held on 22nd November, 2005 subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.

6. The petitioners in their writ petitions have contended that rejection of their applications on technical reasons such as "OMR Application not signed", "Declaration Column not signed", "Non Production of Veterinary Council Registration Certificate" is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission that 448 applications were rejected for the reasons viz. 'OMR Application not signed', 'Declaration Column not signed', ‘Photo Identity not signed’, 'Registration Certificate of Veterinary Council not produced', 'No evidence of date of birth' etc. In so far as the present petitions are concerned, as per the information furnished by the Commission, 68 applications were rejected on the grounds of not signing the OMR Application and/or not signing the Declaration Column or not signing Photo Identity, and the rest of 86 applications were rejected on the ground of non-production of Veterinary Council Registration Certificate.

8. We will first take up W.P. No.37309 of 2005 batch of writ pe







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top