Selection process in public service must adhere to merit and judicial directives; prior selections can be revisited without breaching natural justice if candidates prove higher qualifications.

ORDER :

1. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioners, after being declared as provisionally successful in the process of selection, to the various posts under the Combined Engineering Services, on the basis of the revised provisional list, in which the private respondents herein and others were declared as successful by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, is put in issue by the petitioners in the present writ petitions.

2. Though the petitioners have applied for various posts under various departments of the Government, however, all the posts were advertised through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under the Combined Engineering Services and, therefore, all the writ petitions are taken up together, as the facts which forms the basis for filing the writ petitions are one and the same and, they are disposed through this common order.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as under:-

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) had initiated the process of selection for appointment of Engineers for various departments under the Government through the Tamil Nadu General Service, which included the Combined Engineering Service and notification in this regard calling for applications was issued. On the basis of the notifications, the petitioners herein, belonging to different communal categories, had applied for the respective posts.

4. It is the further case of the petitioners that they are fully qualified and they appeared for the written examination and they came out successful in the written examination and they also satisfied the experience and had also uploaded the necessary documents evidencing their qualification, experience and communal status and based on the same, the result was published by showing the name of the petitioners in the list of provisionally selected candidates for on- screen verification and pursuant to the same, the petitioners candidature, including the documents relating to qualification, experience and communal status of the petitioners were verified and the petitioners were held to have satisfied the requirements.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that they were, thereafter, called upon for oral test which were held on various dates for the various posts for which the notification was issued. It is further averred by the petitioners that even in the annexure to the provisional list, the names of 109 candidates, whose online applications were rejected for various reasons was mentioned. Thereafter, the oral test was conducted and the petitioners had come out successful in the oral test and they attended the counselling as well. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners were issued with an order of appointment to the respective posts, which was issued by the Commission.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioners that in the interregnum, some of the candidates, whose applications were not considered and were rejected for various reasons had approached this court by filing W.P. No. 7141/2023, etc. Batch, and vide order dated 20.03.2023, on the basis of petitions of seven candidates, an order had come to be passed in which this Court had dir