2014 Supreme(Mad) 2989
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Dr. Olga George, M.D(Hom)
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government & Others
Writ Petition No. 29825 of 2013 & M.P. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 05-09-2014
For the Petitioner:N. Kavitha, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R3, R. Ravichandran, Addl. Govt. Pleader, R2, C.N.G. Niraimathi, R4, J. Saravanavel, Advocates.
The selection based on communal reservation does not determine seniority, and the allocation of candidates against roster points should be based on merit, following the method detailed in K.R. Shanthi v. Secretary to Government, Education Department.
Headnote:
Reservation - Communal Rotation - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules - Section 22(c) - Schedule III - Dr. J.Pooja Anbu, MBC, Roster Point 5 - Dr. C.Jeyam, MBC, Roster Point 3 - Dr. K. Senthil Kumaran, MBC (General), Roster Point 7 - Dr. P.Rathamani, BC, Roster Point 1 - Dr. L.Kalaivani, SC(A), Roster Point 2 - Dr. S.Saravanan, Others, Roster Point 9 - Dr. C.Jeyam, MBC, Roster Point 3 - Dr. Pooja Anbu, MBC, Roster Point 5 - Dr. Rathamani, BC, Roster Point 1 - Dr. K. Senthil Kumaran, MBC (General), Roster Point 7 - Dr. P.Rathamani, BC, Roster Point 1 - Dr. L.Kalaivani, SC(A), Roster Point 2 - Dr. S.Saravanan, Others, Roster Point 9
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the allocation of candidates against roster points based on communal reservation in a recruitment process for the post of Professor (Homeopathy) in Tamil Nadu Medical Service. The petitioner, belonging to the Other Community, challenged the allocation of Dr. J.Pooja Anbu, MBC, at Roster Point 5, meant for General Turn (Woman), instead of herself, and the subsequent migration of candidates to safeguard seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allocation of candidates against roster points based on communal reservation was erroneous, but it did not affect the ultimate selection. The court clarified that the selection based on communal reservation does not determine seniority, as declared by the Apex Court in Bhimlesh Tanwar's case.
Issues: The main issue was the erroneous allocation of candidates against roster points based on communal reservation and the subsequent migration to protect seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The selection based on communal reservation does not determine seniority, and the allocation of candidates against roster points should be based on merit, following the method detailed in K.R. Shanthi v. Secretary to Government, Education Department.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court clarified that the selection based on communal reservation has nothing to do with the fixation of seniority.
1. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), the second respondent herein, has issued an advertisement in Advertisement No.208, dated 29.07.2009, inviting applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to various posts, including 10 posts of Professor (Homeopathy).
2. The petitioner applied for the post of Professor (Homeopathy). The 4th respondent is also one of the applicants. While the petitioner belongs to Other Community (Category), the 4th respondent belongs to Most Backward Community.
3. The selection is based on written test and oral test. Based on the marks obtained in the written test and oral test, rank list for the post of Professor (Homeopathy) in the Department of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy in Tamil Nadu Medical Service 2007-2008 was published. The said rank list contains the names of 23 candidates based on the marks obtained in the written examination and oral test. The petitioner has been ranked at Serial No.5 while the 4th respondent at Sl.No.17. Besides indicating the marks obtained in the written test and oral test, the rank list also indicates the community to which the candidate belongs.
4. The selection is made in the order of communal rotation specified in the Schedule as stated in Section 22(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. Schedule III is nothing but 200 Point Roster providing selection based on communal reservation. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute by the parties. In this case, the first 10 Roster points are to be allotted based on the rank read with the communal reservation.
5. (i) The grievance of the petitioner is that Dr. J.Pooja Anbu, who is shown at Sl.No.9 in the rank list is allotted against Roster point 5, which is meant for General Turn (Women). It is the case of the petitioner that General Turn should be allotted to the person based on the marks secured in the selection irrespective of the community (category). Hence, according to the petitioner, she should have been allotted at Roster point 5 instead of Dr. J.Pooja Anbu.
(ii) According to the petitioner, Dr. J. Pooja Anbu, who belongs to MBC and who ranks at Serial No.9, would get allotment at Roster point 3, but at the Roster point 3, Dr.Jayam, who ranks at Sl.No.2 and belongs to Most Backward Community was allotted.
(iii) Hence, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition that she should be allotted in the Roster point 5 in the place of Dr. J. Pooja Anbu and in that event, Dr. Pooja Anbu, who belongs to MBC and who ranks at Sl.No.9 would get selected at the Roster Point No.7 meant for MBC (General). In that event, Dr. K. Senthil Kumaran, the 4th respondent herein, who belongs to MBC (General) and who ranks at Sl.No.17 would not get selected. Hence, the petitioner has made him as one of the party respondents, as her prayer would ultimately result in non-selection of the 4th respondent.
6. The second respondent/TNPSC as well as the 4th respondent have filed their counter affidavit.
7. The aforesaid facts have not been denied by the TNPSC in their counter affidavit. The following passage from the counter affidavit is extracted in this regard :-
The Roster applicable to the post is as follows :-
GT Dr. Rathamani BC Women candidate
SC(A) Dr. Kalaivani
MBC/DC Dr. Jeyam Women occupies a General Turn
GT(W) Dr. Pooja Anbu.J Since one GT vacancy already filled with one BC candidate, the other GT vacancy has to be necessarily filled up with MBC candidate
SC Dr. Karthikeyan
MBC/DC(W) Dr. Senthil Kumaran Men for Women
BC(W) Dr. Sumathy
As per the aforesaid passage, Dr. J.Pooja Anbu is selected against the General Turn (W) roster point.
8. But in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that Dr. C.Jeyam, who belongs to MBC and who ranks at Sl.No.2, should be selected against Roster Point No.5, which is General Turn (Woman). Within the 10 Roster points, the 1st roster point, the 5th roster point and the 9th roster point are allotted to General Turn candidates,