Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN & G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
Swarnam J. Natarajan & Another
Versus
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, rep. by its Registrar General & Others
W.P. Nos. 9350 & 13629 of 2009
Decided on: 28-11-2014
Judicial Service Rules, 1996 - Rule 8 (6) - Army Act - Army Rules - State Civil Services Rules, 1957 - Rule 4(3)(b) - Evidence Act - Sections 123 and 124 - Advocates Act, 1961 – Employment and service – Quash of order - Post of Civil Judge - High Court by its notification invited applications for selection and appointment to six vacancies including two anticipated vacancies in post of Civil Judge Judicial Magistrate I Class in Judicial Service to be made by direct recruitment under provisions of Pondicherry Judicial Service Rules, 1996 hereinafter referred to as Rules - As per said notification vacancies were reserved for Other Backward Class Category and remaining three for Other Community namely Unreserved Category - Petitioners applied to above posts and participated in written and viva voce examination - While petitioner in belongs to community which is notified by Government as an Other Backward Class petitioner belongs to General Category - In results published petitioner stood first in order of merit by securing marks in written examination marks in viva voce thus securing a total of marks and petitioner stood third in Unreserved Category securing marks in written examination and marks in viva voce thereby securing marks - Marks obtained by candidates were notified by High Court in its proceedings – Held, Court wonder how when rules emphasize that rosters are only intended for determining number of vacancies to be reserved and not meant for determining order of appointment or seniority relative seniority of all direct recruits has to be determined by order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on recommendations of Selection Committee Pondicherry Judicial Service Rules,1996 in Para of Annexure to said Rules provide that a list of suitable candidates shall be prepared in order of merit on basis of aggregate of marks secured in competitive examination including viva-voce that in High Courts notification calling for applications it has been clearly stated in Para relating to Procedure of Selection that selection will be made based on result of written examination and viva-voce examination selection will be made on basis of the total marks obtained by candidates first respondent had blindly and simply clarified to Government/second respondent that according to roster arrangement of candidates rank wise was proper - Said clarification only shows non-application of mind on part of first respondent which irregularity in fact has made petitioners to knock doors of this Court seeking justice - Said attitude of first respondent is not appreciable - Court also add that first respondent being higher judiciary and guardian of justice instead of being a role model to other institutions for perfection and integrity has become cynosure of criticism for its unjust and arbitrary action in case on hand - In view of mandate of Article 234 of Constitution High Court has to take a decision on suitability of a candidate on administrative side and it cannot act arbitrarily on matter - Having given wrong picture of roster and incorrect clarification with regard to appointment and promotion Government and High Court respectively have erred in discharging their responsibilities under Article 234 - Petitioners shall succeed in their prayer - Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to re-fix the seniority of petitioners and also imp leaded fifth respondent over and above respondents 3 and 4 and also respondent 5 and provide them with all consequential benefits flowing there from - Writ Petitions are allowed
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. Petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to R.O.C.No.17/2009-Con.B2 dated 5.5.2009, to quash the same in so far as it promotes and posts respondents 3 and 4 as Civil Judges (Senior Division) in the Pondicherry Judicial Service and consequently direct the first respondent to fix the seniority of the Civil Judges (Junior Division), Pondicherry Judicial Service, as per the merit list prepared by it, pursuant to Notification No.87/2001, dated 6.8.2001, and to further consider and promote the petitioners as Civil Judge (Senior Division) with effect from 5.5.2009, with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.
2. The High Court of Madras, by its notification No.87/2001, dated 06.08.2001, invited applications for selection and appointment to six vacancies, including two anticipated vacancies, in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate I Class in the Pondicherry Judicial Service, to be made by direct recruitment, under the provisions of Pondicherry Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1996, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules". As per the said notification, 3 vacancies were reserved for Other Backward Class (OBC) Category and the remaining three for Other Community (OC), namely, Unreserved Category.
3. Petitioners applied to the above posts and participated in the written and viva voce examination. While the petitioner in W.P.No.9350 of 2009 belongs to "Kuyavar" community, which is notified by the Government of Puducherry as an Other Backward Class (OBC), the petitioner in W.P.No.13629 of 2009 belongs to General Category. In the results published, the petitioner in W.P.9350 of 2009 stood first in the order of merit by securing 230 marks in the written examination and 47.16 marks in the viva voce, thus securing a total of 277.16 marks, and the petitioner in W.P.No.13629 of 2009 stood third in Unreserved Category, securing 203 marks in written examination and 55.50 marks in viva voce, thereby securing 258.50 marks. The marks obtained by the candidates were notified by the High Court in its proceedings ROC No.82/99/CON.B1, dated 10.10.2002.
4. Pursuant to the recommendations of the High Court, the Government of Pondicherry, the second respondent, issued the offer of appointment vide No.21016/1/2--2-LD, dated 09.12.2002, and, after acceptance of the same, the appointment order was communicated individually vide No.48-12/2001-LD (PJS) dated 27.01.2003, pursuant to which the petitioners reported for duty in the year 2003.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner in W.P.No.9350 of 2009 that even though he belonged to OBC Category, he was selected against Unreserved Category and three other OBC candidates were selected against the OBC vacancies.
6. Since the date of appointment, the petitioners have not been communicated any seniority list in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate I Class. They have been appointed in accordance with the Pondicherry Judicial Service (cadre and recruitment) Rules, 1996.
7. When the events stood thus, there arose two vacancies in the post of Civil Judges (Senior Division) under Pondicherry Judicial Service and two more vacancies were likely to arise for promotion from among the Civil Judges (Junior Division). Respondents 3 and 4, who were ranked below the petitioners in the merit list of Civil Judges (Junior Division) and appointed against the OBC vacancies, have been considered and recommended by the first respondent to the second respondent for promotion as Civil Judges (Senior Division) in the existing vacancies.
8. Hence, these Writ Petitions.
9. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.9350 of 2009, stating as under :
9.1. The promotive post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) is by selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority from amongst the category of Civil Judge (Junior
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
