Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2394
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
V. Mohankumar
Versus
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission & Others
W.P.Nos. 14169, 14170, 9687, 10413, 10824, 10825, 10909, 10959, 10960, 11036, 11037, 11038, 11039, 11040, 11094, 11095, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161, 11246, 11247, 11248, 12397, 12931, 12932, 13229, 13244, 13245, 13283, 13284, 13297, 13341, 13342, 13344, 13345, 13346, 13348, 13352, 13376, 13377, 13378, 13379, 13380, 13381, 13382, 13383, 13386, 13576, 13635, 13636, 13725, 13879, 13880, 14519, 14915 and 15335 of 2008 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions.
Decided on: 14-07-2008
For the Petitioner:N.R. Chandran, Senior Counsel, N. Umapathi, M. Elango, K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel, M. Muthappan, A. Kalaiselvan, N. Subramaniyan, D. Krishnakumar, K. Rajkumar, R. Govindasamy, S. Xavier Felix, V. Venkatasamy, S. Mani, P.R. Dinesh Kumar, S. Doraisamy, V. Harikrishnan, S.P.B. Dhuraishamy, Advocates.
For the Respondent:A. Arul, Standing Counsel for TNPSC, R2 & R3, P.S. Raman, Addl. Adv. General, assisted by Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-II on contract basis, while the regular selection process through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was in progress, was impermissible. The impugned orders were found to be inconsistent with the statutory rules and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and were set aside.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Inspectors - Appointment on Contract Basis - Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955 - The impugned Government Order and circular issued by the Transport Commissioner are set aside. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is directed to complete the selection process and submit the list of selected candidates to the second respondent on or before 30.9.2008.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the Government Order (G.O.Ms.No.324, Home Department, dated 3. 2008) and circular issued by the Transport Commissioner, seeking direction to consider their names for selection to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-II on contract basis. The petitioners, who held Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and had relevant experience, applied for the posts but were affected by the new qualification requirements and conditions imposed by the impugned orders.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned orders were found to be in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955. The court held that the appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-II on contract basis, while the regular selection process through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was in progress, was impermissible. The impugned Government Order and circular issued by the Transport Commissioner were set aside, and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was directed to complete the selection process and submit the list of selected candidates to the second respondent on or before 30.9.2008.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included: 1) Whether candidates can be appointed on contract basis in violation of the qualifications prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the recruitment rules; 2) Whether the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order invoking Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955; 3) Whether the respondents were justified in prescribing Rs.5 lakhs as bank guarantee or security from the selected candidates for their engagement as Contract Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-II; 4) Whether the respondents were justified in issuing the impugned order when the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had notified 49 vacancies and the recruitment process was in progress; 5) Whether the action of the respondents amounted to encouraging back door entry in public employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned orders were inconsistent with the statutory rules and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was found that the appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-II on contract basis, while the regular selection process through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was in progress, was impermissible. The court also found that the imposition of a bank guarantee or security worth Rs.5 lakhs was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the court condemned the possibility of back door entry in public employment through the impugned selection process.
Final Decision: The impugned Government Order and circular issued by the Transport Commissioner were set aside. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was directed to complete the selection process and submit the list of selected candidates to the second respondent on or before 30.9.2008.
1. This batch of 58 cases are filed challenging in entirety the G.O.Ms.No.324 Home Department, dated 3. 2008 or in part of the said Government order by the petitioners, seeking further direction to consider the name of the petitioners for selection to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-II on contract basis as per section 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955.
2. As the issue involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, all the 58 writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.14169 of 2008 is taken as lead case and the parties in this common order are referred accordingly.
3. The case of petitioners are that they have completed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and gained experience of more than one year in the Government approved and reputed Automobile Workshops and they are having valid driving licence for driving Motor vehicles, Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued notification in advertisement No.107 for filling up 49 vacancies estimated in February, 2007, pursuant to which the petitioners herein applied for the above said posts, as according to them, they are all qualified candidates. Written test was conducted on 27. 2007 by the TNPSC for preliminary selection and the petitioners are awaiting for results.
4. In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.324, Home Department, dated 3. 2008 and invited applications for appointment of 65 Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-II on contract basis till the regular recruitment process is completed by the TNPSC. In the said Government Order, the respondents prescribed the qualification as pass in B.E. degree in Automobile Engineering or related branches of Engineering. It is further stated that the said appointments will be initially for a period of one year from the date of joining or till the date of the regularly appointed candidates join duty and the contract may be extended further at the discretion of the Contract Appointment Committee/Government, depending upon the performance and need. The further condition prescribed are that the persons to be appointed shall adhere to the working hours assigned to the regular Motor Vehicle Inspectors and discharge all other duties and responsibilities assigned to the post. The post of Contract Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II shall carry consolidated pay of Rs.8,000/-per month. Since the post involve heavy money transaction, production of bank guarantee or suitable security to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) is also insisted. It is further stated that the performance of the candidates will be assessed on quarterly basis.
5. Pursuant to the said Government Order, the Transport Commissioner issued further instructions on 14. 2008 wherein minimum age of 21 and upper age limit of 32 is prescribed and for BC, MBC, SC & ST candidates, relaxation of five years upto 37 years is also given. It is also prescribed that the candidate must also possess experience of six months after obtaining Heavy Motor Vehicle licence. The total seats are distributed based on reservation norms. The Government also invited applications through advertisement dated 14. 2008.
6. The said orders of the respondents are challenged in this batch of 58 writ petitions either in toto or some of the clauses on the ground that the notification is contrary to Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the notification issued by the Central Government prescribing minimum qualification through S.O.443(E) dated 18. 1989. The said notification is also in violation of Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1955, particularly with regard to the prescription of qualification and by permitting the respondents to proceed with the impugned selection, petitioners right to get selected based on the Diploma qualification and one year experience certificate, will be affec
