The court emphasized the constitutional right to equality of opportunity in employment and the legality of restrictions on government servants from entering into another government service.

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner has now come forward to challenge Rule 2(14) of the Preliminary Rule framed under the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Services Rules. The said rule reads as follows: " 2(14) A candidate is said to be recruited direct" to a service, class, category or post when, in case his first appointment thereto has to be made in consultation with the Commission, on the date of its notification inviting applications for the recruitment and in any other case, at the time of his first appointment thereto, he is not in the service of the Government of India or the Government of a State- Provided that for the purposes of this definition a person shall be deemed to be not in the service of the Government of India or the Government of a State- (i) If a period of five years has not elapsed since his first appointment to a service of the Government of India or the Government of a State; or (ii) If he belongs to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes."

3. The petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer Grade II in the Southern Railway at the Division Office under the Divisional Railway Manager, Tiruchirappali. The petitioner is also an Ex-serviceman. The second respondent viz.,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission(TNPSC) called for applications for the post of combined subordinate services examination-I held in 2007, for which, oral tests were to be held from 17.3.2008 to 15.4.2008. Subsequently by a communication dated 5.3.2008 he was informed that he was provisionally selected for the oral test for the combined Subordinate services Examination-I,2007. Subsequently the oral results were published in the website of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. But the petitioner was not allotted with any mark. Thereafter, though a select list was published, the petitioners name did not find a place. On further enquiry,he came to know that his results were withheld.

4. The petitioner thereafter made a representation asking for the publication of his results. He also took re-course under the Right to Information Act and asked the information to be provided. The Public Information officer of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by a communication dated 30.12.208 informed the petitioner which is as follows: 1. What is the basis and purpose of making such condition on the basis of Past and Current Government employment? Preliminary Rule 2(14) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules(Copy enclosed) 2. Is there any Legal Opinion/Circular available with the Commission to Justify the rule?(Copy required) The Commission is announcing the said rule in all its Notification inviting application for direct recruitment. It was thereafter the petitioner decided to challenge the said rule and hence this writ petition.

5.The contention of the petitioner was that the application form enable ex-service man to make applications. Therefore he should be considered under ex-serviceman category. He also stated that he took No Objection Certificate from his employer viz.,Assistant Personnel officer,Tiruchirappalli for participating in the selection. He further submitted that the employment in the State is a public employment and persons have got right to compete in any selection for employment. Such a guarantee is given under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rule insofar as it prevents a Government servants (both Central and State), who have completed five years of service, being denied entry into service is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, he has come forward to challenge the said rule and for a consequential direction to declare his results. It must be noted that similar contentions raised in the earlier round of litigation by State Government servants were rejected by this Court in more than one writ petition. Notwithstanding the same, counsel for the petitioner contended that the rule is invalid and he being an Ex-serviceman, h