Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Madhan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Home(Police-II)Department, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 5319 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 6044 of 2019
Decided on : 26-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :K. Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for M. Muthappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R.S. Selvam, Government Advocate, V. Kathirvelu, Special Government Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in-service candidates cannot avail the PSTM quota, which is meant for unemployed persons entering into a service at first instance through open competitive process.
Headnote:
PSTM - Appointment Quota - Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Service under the State of Persons in Tamil Medium Rules 2010 - Rules 2(a) and 2(b) - The court discussed the purpose and object of the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.09.2010 and interpreted the rules constructively and pragmatically in consonance with the Constitutional principles. The court emphasized that the quota in special categories cannot exceed the limits so as to deprive or infringe the rights of all other eligible candidates from various other categories, and that fixing of quota must have a rationale. The court held that the direct recruitment means the first appointment of a person to any service, and thus, in-service candidates cannot avail the PSTM quota as it is meant for unemployed persons entering into a service at first instance through open competitive process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Grade II Police Constable, sought a direction to be appointed as Sub - Inspector (Finger print) under Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) quota. The petitioner claimed eligibility for the quota based on completing 5 years of service and securing 62.30 marks, despite the cut off for open market candidates being 63.80 marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being an in-service candidate, cannot avail the PSTM quota as it is meant for unemployed persons entering into a service at first instance through open competitive process. The court held that the procedure adopted by the department was in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Service under the State of Persons in Tamil Medium Rules 2010.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as an in-service candidate, was eligible for the PSTM quota for appointment as Sub - Inspector (Finger print) under the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Service under the State of Persons in Tamil Medium Rules 2010.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the rules and the principle that the PSTM quota is meant for unemployed persons entering into a service at first instance through open competitive process, and thus, in-service candidates cannot avail the quota.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner under Persons Studied in Tamil Medium ((PSTM) as Sub - Inspector (Finger print) 2018 and in pursuance of the marks obtained by him and send him for training and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.)
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner under Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) as Sub - Inspector (Finger print) 2018 and in pursuance of the marks obtained by him and send him for training and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
2. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner contended that the writ petitioner is a Graduate in Science(Psychology), studied in Tamil Medium and belongs to M.B.C community. The writ petitioner entered into Police Service as a Grade-II Police Constable through the Selection conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board(TNUSRB) and appointed into service on 01.02.2011 in the District Armed Reserve category-II. The petitioner had undergone training as Grade II Police Constable in Madurai City police recruit school for six months and thereafter, posted to serve in Chennai City Armed Reserve at Pudupet from July 2011. The 2nd respondent invited applications from open market as well as from the departmental candidates for selection and appointment to the Post of Sub - Inspector (Finger print) for the year 2018. The Notification was issued on 29.08.2018 for 202 vacancies, wherein 20% of the vacancies were earmarked for in-service candidates, who all are serving in the Police Department. The petitioner, who is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post, as a departmental candidate since he has completed 5 years of service as Grade II Police Constable in the Police Department. The petitioner had submitted his application to participate in the process of selection. Out of the 202 vacancies, 40 seats were earmarked for the the persons studied in Tamil Medium. 20% of the total seats namely 40 seats were earmarked for in-service candidates and out of that, 8 seats were earmarked studied in Tamil Medium for in-service candidates. Thus, the writ petitioner is eligible to avail the quota within the 8 seats already reserved as per the Recruitment Notification.
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner was not selected under the quota for Tamil Medium, despite the fact that he has secured 62.30 marks in the process of selection. The cut off mark prescribed for open market candidates under PSTM is 63.80 marks. If quota is provided proportionately in respect of the in-service candidates, the writ petitioner is eligible to be selected and appointed under PSTM preferential quota to the Post of Sub - Inspector (Finger print). In view of the fact that the opportunity was denied to the writ petitioner under the quota, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent states that the appointment on preferential basis in the services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium was granted in G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.09.2010. As per the said Government order, the writ petitioner is not eligible to avail 20% of quota, allotted for Tamil Medium as the same has not applicable to the in-service candidates.
5. Let us now look into the very purpose and object of the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 30.09.2010.
6. The said Government order was passed on the basis of an Ordinance namely the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of Persons, studied in Tamil Medium Ordinance, 2010.
