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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1801

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
Dr. V. Selvendran & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P(MD).No. 11599 of 2023 & W.M.P.(MD).No. 10080 of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:M. Ravi, Advocate. For the Respondents:R. Baskaran, Additional Advocate General assisted by V. Nirmal Kumar, Government Advocate.

The judgment established the importance of considering the challenges faced by long-serving employees in competitive examinations and the impact of job loss on individuals above a certain age.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Veterinary Assistant Surgeon - Rule 10A - G.O.Ms.No.104 dated 20.05.2014 - Special Qualifying Examination - Regularization - Competitive Examination - Weightage of marks - Age relaxations - Continuance in service - Retirement and terminal benefits

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, sought a Mandamus to continue in their posts till retirement without retirement and pensionary benefits. They were appointed through Employment Exchange and sought regularization after a policy decision by the Government. The Supreme Court declined to accept the proposal to regularize their services, leading to a legal battle.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioners, having served for more than 10 years, faced challenges in competing with younger candidates in a competitive examination due to changes in syllabus and lack of preparation time. The Court considered the Supreme Court's direction to grant weightage of marks and age relaxations to in-service candidates.

Issues: The issues revolved around the regularization of the petitioners' services, their eligibility for competitive examination, and the impact of age and experience on their ability to compete with younger candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners should compete in the examination with the granted weightage of marks. It also considered the impact of job loss on individuals above the age of 45 and directed the petitioners to submit an application to give up retirement and terminal benefits before the government and the Supreme Court.

Final Decision: The Court directed the 20 petitioners, and any persons above the age of 45, to be considered for continuance in service until retirement with only time scale of pay without retirement and terminal benefits. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the claim of the petitioners for allowing them to continue in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon with pay protection (regular time scale of pay) alone till the date of their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, without even retirement or pensionary benefits and to pass appropriate orders.)

The writ petitioners had filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon with pay protection (regular time scale of pay) alone till the date of their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, without even retirement and terminal benefits and pass orders appropriately.

2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioners have acquired B.V.Sc., degree and they registered their names in the Professional Executive Employment Exchange. During the year 2011, the Government appointed 843 Veterinary Assistant Surgeons through Employment Exchange and their appointments are under Rule 10 (a) (i) of the State Subordinate Service Rules by following the rules of roster.

3. The petitioners were under the impression that they would be regularized upon clearing the Special Qualifying Examinations that would be conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Considering the peculiar circumstances, in which the petitioners were appointed, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.104 dated 20.05.2014, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH-7) Department and took a policy decision to undergo Special Qualifying Examination so that the petitioners’ services would be regularized. Unfortunately, instead of issuing separate notification, a common notification was issued from the open market candidates to participate in the competitive examination and for the temporary appointees to participate in the Special Qualifying Examination and the same has resulted in challenging by the open market candidates and the litigations ended up against the writ petitioners.

4. In fact, the Government intended to protect the interest of the writ petitioners. Hence, the Government came out with the policy decision to protect their interest. Accordingly, the petitioners preferred an interim application before the Supreme Court for suitable relief enabling regularization of service after obtaining concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. In view of the peculiar circumstances, wherein 573 posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were filled up through employment exchange, after following the rule of roster, the consistent decision of the Government, the petitioners were under the impression that they would be regularized. However, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was declining to accept the proposal to regularize the services of the petitioners and other 573 similarly placed persons upon clearing the competitive examination with the occurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

5. The further case of the petitioners is that they have demonstrated and established the eligibility and suitability for the regular appointment by their actual and physical services put in for more than a decade. Since there were more disadvantageous position, where they have to compete with youngsters that too after the change in curriculum for more than two times and lack of time for theoretical preparation, in view of continuous services in the said post resulting in depriving them from a “Level Playing Field”. Youngsters from the open market, who had recently equipped themselves with theoretical knowledge in tune with the recent curriculum will definitely push the petitioners in a disadvantageous position.

6. In view of the fact that the notification was issued beyond the time limit prescribed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, there were other infirmities such as sudden introduction of Tamil e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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