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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 2874

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. RAJA, J.
M. Pradeepa – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. (MD) Nos. 10783 & 10820 of 2015 and M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 02-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. G.R. Swaminathan and Mr. G. Thalaimutharasu.
For the TNPSC : Mr. K.K. Senthil.
For the HR&CE Department :Mr. Aayiram K. Selvakumar, Government Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that Reserve List candidates have a vested right to claim appointment on the occurrence of specific contingencies, and the failure to operate the Reserve List in a timely manner is unjust and unreasonable.

Headnote:

Reserve List - Appointment to Executive Officer Grade-I - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Subordinate Service - Rule 10(a)(i) of State and Subordinate Service Rules - Operation of Reserve List - Right of Reserve List candidates - Lapse of Reserve List - Vested right of Reserve List candidates

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the non-consideration of their names for appointment to the post of Executive Officer Grade-I in the HR&CE Subordinate Service due to the non-operation of the Reserve List. The petitioners were placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserve List against specific categories and sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their cases for selection based on the Reserve List.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioners had a vested right to claim appointment for the post in question as per Rule 10(a)(i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. The Court held that the Reserve List candidates have a right to get appointed if the selected candidates failed to join duty in time, and their rights get crystallized once the last date for reporting to duty of the selected candidates is over. The Court also noted that the Reserve List could not be operated due to the respondents' failure to take timely action, and the petitioners' pleas were not considered with seriousness.

Issues: The issues revolved around the non-operation of the Reserve List, the right of Reserve List candidates, and the lapse of the Reserve List.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Reserve List candidates have a vested right to claim appointment on the occurrence of specific contingencies, and the respondents' failure to take timely action on the Reserve List was unjust and unreasonable.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the TNPSC to forward the names of the petitioners to the HR&CE Department for the issuance of suitable appointment orders in their favor within a specified period.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner in W.P.M.D. No. 10783 of 2015, Mrs. M. Pradeepa challenges the impugned Memorandum issued by the 3rd respondent/Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'TNPSC') whereby, she was informed that the result of the subsequent recruitment for the post of Executive Officer (in short, 'EO') Grade-I in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Subordinate Service included in Group-VIIA Services for the year 2011-2014 has been finalized on 17.09.2014 by means of counselling mode and hence, the Reserve List, dated 01.08.2014, for the said post pertaining to 2009-2011 got lapsed. Since the petitioner, who is at Serial No. 1 against MBC/DC-W (PSTM) Category in the Reserve List, dated 01.08.2014, issued by the TNPSC, was denied appointment to the post of Executive Officer, Grade-I in the HR&CE Subordinate Services on the ground that the Reserve List for the relevant period stood lapsed, she is before this Court.

Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.M.D. No. 10820 of 2015 Mr. K. Marimuthu, who is placed at Serial No. 1 against SC-General Category in the Reserve List, dated 01.08.2014, of the TNPSC, aggrieved by non- consideration of his name for appointment to the post of E.O. Grade-I due to non-operation of the Reserve List, has come to this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his case for selection to the post of EO Grade-I in the HR&CE Subordinate Service included in Group VII-A Services for the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 in the vacancy caused due to the relieving of one Mr. G. Kaniraj, based on the Reserve List, dated 01.08.2014.

Since both the cases are interconnected, they are disposed of by this Common Order.

2. Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.M.D. No. 10783 of 2015, would submit that the petitioner, who is a Master Degree Holder in Law, responded to a Notification, dated 02.04.2012, issued by the TNPSC to fill up 14 vacancies of EO Grade-I in the HR&CE Administration Department for Group-VII A Services relating to 2009-10 & 2010-11, by applying for the said post. After attending the written examination with Registration No. 01002737, she secured 387 marks and subsequently, in the oral test conducted by the TNPSC vide proceedings, dated 11.07.2014 in Memorandum No. 3032/OTD-B4/2011, she was awarded 42 marks, thus, the Total Mark secured by her was 387+42 = 429. When the TNPSC issued the list of selected candidates, her name appeared in the 2nd list and, as per the proceedings of the TNPSC, dated 01.08.2014, she was informed that she was not selected for appointment, however, her name was included in the Reserve List at Serial No. 1 against MBC/DC-W (PSTM) Category. Pausing here, learned counsel for the petitioner would highlight that, in the said proceedings of the TNPSC, dated 01.08.2014, the petitioner was duly informed that the Reserve List would be in force until the drawl of next selection list for the said post by the TNPSC. Further, it was also made clear therein that the Reserve List would be taken into consideration in favour of the petitioner against the vacancies caused due to - (i) Non-joining of selected candidates; (ii) Selected candidates who joined duty but left thereafter; (iii) Cancellation of provisional selection of the selected candidate for any reason. According to the learned counsel, as per the aforesaid proceedings, it goes without saying that if any selected candidate fails to join duty, the respondents should resort to the Reserve List. While so, one Selvi. Vidya, a selected candidate from MBC-DC-W (PSTM) Category, did not join duty, whereupon, the petitioner herein, who belongs to the very same Category and already placed by the TNPSC at Serial No. 1 in the Reserve List, submitted a series of representations, dated 03.02.2015, 02.04.2015 and 20.05.2015, requesting both the TNPSC and the HR&CE Department to operate the Reserve List in her








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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