JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent relating to the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 09.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents 1 to 4 from proceeding further based on the Search and Seizure conducted by the fourth respondent on 14.10.2011.)

Common Order:

Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, C.J.

1. These writ petitions are based on common set of facts and involve common questions of law. To avoid rigmarole, these writ petitions are decided by a common judgment.

2. The writ petitions filed in the year 2011 (except W.P.Nos. 25147 and 24848 of 2011) assail G.O.Ms.No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 9.8.2011, by virtue of which, the Government brought the Chairman and Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) under the purview of the State Vigilance Commission and the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. W.P.Nos.25147 and 24848 of 2011 are filed seeking cancellation of various examinations conducted by the TNPSC. The writ petition of the year 2016 assails the amendment incorporated by virtue of Regulation 7-D in The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954 (for short,“TNPSC Regulations 1954”), so also amending Regulation 7-A. Under the said amendment, the Chairman and Members of the TNPSC are brought under the purview of the State Vigilance Commission and the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption with effect from 9.8.2011.

3. The petitioners herein are Chairman and Members of the TNPSC, respectively.

4. The contour of the submissions of learned advocates for the petitioners can be culled out as under:

*The TNPSC Regulations 1954 consciously excluded the Chairman and Members of the TNPSC from the purview of the State Vigilance Commission and the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 9.8.2011, they could not be brought under the ambit of the State Vigilance Commission and the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The executive instructions cannot override the statutory regulations. To buttress their submissions, learned advocates for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Vishnu Kant Jha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 5 SCC 665; and, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217.

*If a statute provides for a particular thing to be done in a certain manner, it has to be done in that manner only. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Anuradha Bhasin and others v. Union of India, 2020 1 Supreme 243; Shiv Kumar Chandha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161; Ram Chandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joyti, (1975) 1 SCC 559; and, Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority and others, (2022) 11 SCC 1.

*The impugned Government Order was promulgated without complying and/or in violation of Rule 96 of the Government of Tamil Nadu Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions promulgated under Article 166(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India. Adherence to the Business Rules is imperative. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MRF Limited and others v. Manohar Parikkar and others, (2010) 11 SCC 374.

*The terms and conditions of the service of the Chairman and Members of the TNPSC cannot be altered to the detriment. The same would be in violation of Article 318 of the Constitution of India read with proviso to Article 320(3). The Government, by resorting to the executive instructions under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, could not have supplanted the TNPSC Regulations 1954.

*The amendment to the TNPSC Regulations 1954 is erroneous. It cannot take effect from a retrospective date. A vested right cannot be e