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

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 8782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.06.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.657 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.814 of 2018 M.Leelavathy ... Petitioner Vs The Secretary & Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondent Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the respondent to call for the entire records of the impugned letter i.e., Posts included in combined Civil Services Examination-II (interview Posts) (Group-II Services), 2014-15 & 2015-2016, List-OT, dated 04.01.2018 and quash the same in respect of the petitioner's concern and directing the respondent permit the petitioner to allow the oral interview of the Group-

II Service, (Interview Post).

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manoharan For Respondents : Mrs.G.Hema Standing Counsel

ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the respondent to call for the entire records of the impugned letter i.e., Posts included in combined Civil Services Examination-II (interview Posts) (Group-II Services), 2014-15 & 2015- 2016, List-OT, dated 04.01.2018 and quash the same in respect of the petitioner's concern and directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to allow the oral interview of the Group-II Service, (Interview Post). 2. The petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman, under the said quota applications were called for by the respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the Combined Civil Service examinations both for interview and non-interview posts (Group II services) for 2014-15 and

2015-16.

3. Simultaneously, the petitioner also applied for both non-

interview and interview post of the same Group II services for various category of posts.

4. Insofar as the interview posts are concerned, the main written examination was held on 26.07.2015 and in respect of non-interview posts are concerned, the main written examination was held on 27.12.2015, the petitioner written both the examinations. Insofar as the non-interview post is concerned, the main written examination results were immediately published, based on which, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant in Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services and had been working in that post.

5. However, insofar as the main written examination the petitioner written on 26.07.2015 for interview posts are concerned, after certificate verification, the final list of candidates to be called for oral test were published by the respondent Service Commission on 04.01.2018. In the list of candidates, the petitioner's name was not found and when the petitioner enquired, he came to know that, since the petitioner being an Ex-Serviceman applied for the post in both the cases under the Ex- Servicemen quota and since he has availed the benefit of Ex-Servicemen quota and was selected and appointed as Assistant as stated supra as a non-interview post, once again the same quota cannot be extended to the petitioner in view of the rule position which got amended by issuance of G.O.Ms.No.89 Personal and Administrative Reforms (S) Department of Tamil Nadu dated 12.08.2015, under which, the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules got amended, by which, proviso to Rule 7-A under the heading “Ex-Servicemen” says that, an Ex-Serviceman once recruited to a post in any class or service or category, cannot claim the concession of being called an ex-serviceman for his further recruitment.

6. Therefore, aggrieved over the said application of the said Rule on the recruitment conducted by the respondent Service Commission for the interview posts for written examination conducted on 26.07.2015, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the list of candidates published for oral interview by the Service Commission dated 04.01.2018 that is how this writ petition has come up.

7. Heard Mr.V.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, though the examination for interview post was conducted on 26.07.2015, the results were not immediately released, whereas the non-interview post examination though was conducted belatedly or subsequently i.e. on 26.07.2015 since the result was immediately published and the petitioner was selected and appointed as such.

8. However, on the date of examination i.e., on 26.07.2015, the G.O.Ms.No.89 was not issued or published, therefore the existing rule position was that, even though the petitioner had already claimed to the status of Ex-Serviceman and availed the benefit of Ex-Servicemen quota, that will not preclude the petitioner from seeking the same benefit once again for any further recruitment and therefore, the proviso as per the amendment made in the Tamil Naud State and Subordinate Services Rules by G.O.Ms.No.89 as referred to above dated 12.08.2015 may not have any applic

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top