JUDGMENT

(Judgement of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner/first respondent herein belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The appellant TNPSC published notification on 06.02.2014 calling for applications for Combined Civil Services Examination – II (Non- Interview Post) (Group – IIA Services). Totally 2269 vacancies were notified in the posts of Personal Clerks and Assistants in various departments. Subsequently, a supplemental notification was issued on 16.04.2014 adding 577 posts of Assistants and Accountants. Thus, the total notified vacancies was 2846. The writ petitioner wrote the written examination on 29.06.2014. TNPSC published the provisional list of selected candidates on 14.07.2015 to attend the second phase of certificate verification. The writ petitioner's name figured in the said list. He was however not appointed. His name figured in the provisional list of the selected candidates for the fifth phase of certificate verification published on 02.03.2016. But he was not appointed. In the meanwhile, recruitment notifications for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were notified.

3.The writ petitioner sought information under the RTI Act regarding the number of vacancies and the persons appointed during the five phases of certificate verifications. Information was provided. The writ petitioner noted that a large number of notified vacancies were not filled up on account of the non-joining by the selected candidates. It was also informed that only 2690 candidates were appointed. In this background, the petitioner filed WP(MD)No.10747 of 2017. The writ petition was allowed on 29.04.2019.

Questioning the same, TNPSC filed this intra-court appeal.

4.The learned standing counsel for TNPSC submitted that TNPSC did not prepare any Reserve List since the recruitment involved multiple posts and in multiple unit offices. Reliance is placed on the order dated 08.08.2024 made in WP Nos.32640 and 32644 of 2023. The learned standing counsel reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow this writ appeal.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that interference is not warranted. He called upon this Court to dismiss the writ appeal.

6.We carefully considered the rival contentions. The recruitment process took place before the enactment of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2016. However, there were statutory rules corresponding to Section 3(u) and proviso 2 to Section 27(f) of the Act. Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules contained the following proviso :

“Provided also that when a candidate selected for appointment against a vacancy for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward Classes/Denotified Communities, Backward Classes, Backward Class Muslims or General Turn, does not join duty in the post for which he is appointed or his provisional selection for that post is cancelled for any reason, a candidate in his place shall be appointed from the respective @category and in accordance with the ranking from the Reserve list:”

The scope of the above Rule and the right of a candidate whose name is included in the Reserve List has been dealt with in a catena of decisions. In Dr.D.Karal vs The State Of Tamil Nadu (2009) 1 MLJ 1259, the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental) in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service. They were in the Reserve List. Even though 14 selected candidates failed to join duty, the petitioner who were in the Reserve List were not given appointments. Instead, a fresh recruitment notification was issued. The writ petition was allowed by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in (2008) 3 L.W. 222 (The Secretary, TNPSC v. R.Nagarajan). The Hon'ble Division Bench had held that it is a fallacy to argue that persons in the Reserve List cannot be appointed in the vacancies