Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.02.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.P.Nos.5105, 4430, 4431 & 4518 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.5623, 5624, 4779, 4780, 4787, 4789, 4891, 4893 & 4894 of 2024 (i)W.P.No.5105 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.5623 & 5624 of 2024 J.Sheena ... Petitioner Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. By Its Secretary, TNPC Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600003.
2. The Registrar (General), High Court, Madras ~600 104. ... Respondents Prayer :~ Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that the provisional select list dated 16.02.2024 for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in so far as including the candidate belonging to the MBC, SC and BC (Muslim) who got selected in the open category by obtaining the top score and accommodating them in the seats reserved for MBC, SC and BC(Muslim) respectively and consequently direct the respondents to prepare the fresh list by including the candidates belonging to MBC, SC and BC (Muslim) and who got selected in the Open category by including them in the Open category list and draw the fresh list of candidates for selection to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Selected pursuant to the Notification No.12/23, Advertisement No.661, dated 01.06.2023 and proceed to fill up the vacancies on that basis. For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mr.R.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel for TNPSC (for R1);
Mr.B.Vijay (for R2) (ii)W.P.No.4430 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.4779 & 4780 of 2024 P.Shri Dharshini ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home (Courts ~I) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai~09.
2. The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai~104.
3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, TNPSC Road, Park Town, Chennai~ 03. ... Respondents Prayer :~ Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned provisional Selection List Published by the 3rd Respondent in No. Nil dated 16.02.2024 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to arrive the Selection list by preparing list of Candidates under General Turn at the first instance in consideration of meritorious candidates irrespective of Community, followed by Backlog Vacancies and Communal Vacancies under Regular list, in accordance with ratio laid down by Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shobana reported in 2021 (4) SCC 686 and thereby considering the Petitioner for selection to the Post of Civil Judge under SC Reserved Category. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Special Government Pleader (for R1) Mr.B.Vijay (for R2) Mr.R.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel for TNPSC (for R3) (iii)W.P.No.4431 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.4787 & 4789 of 2024 1. D.Dinesh, 2. M.Gokul Mithun Kumar, 3. S.Adhu Siva Subramanian, 4. P.Jesu Balan, ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home (Courts ~I) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai~09.
2. The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai~104.
3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, TNPSC Road, Park Town, Chennai~ 03. ... Respondents Prayer :~ Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned provisional Selection List Published by the 3rd Respondent in No. Nil dated 16.02.2024 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to arrive the Selection list by preparing list of Candidates under General Turn at the first instance in consideration of meritorious candidates irrespective of Community, followed by Backlog Vacancies and Communal Vacancies under Regular list, in accordance with ratio laid down by Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shobana reported in 2021 (4) SCC 686 and thereby considering the Petitioner for selection to the Post of Civil Judge under MBC/DNC Reserved Category. For Petitioners : Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Special Government Pleader (for R1) Mr.B.Vijay (for R2) Mr.R.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel for TNPSC (for R3) (iv)W.P.No.4518 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.4891, 4893 & 4894 of 2024 1. R.Sushmitha 2. E.Swetha 3. H.Nadia Fathima ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By Its Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home (Courts I) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai~09.
2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai~03.
3. The Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature At Madras, High Court Buildings, Chennai~ 104. ... Respondents Prayer :~ Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned list dated 16.02.2024 published by the 2nd Respondent Commission to the Post of Civil Judge by Notification No.12/2023 dated 01.06.2023 and quash the same so far as the application of reservation for backlog vacancies is concerned and consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent Commission to redo the select list by first filling up the General Turn and then backlog vacancies and thereafter the various communal categories as mandated in Sec 27 (F) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conditions of Service Act 2016 and select and appoint the petitioners to the Post of Civil Judge in the MBC Category ( Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) and BC Muslim Category ( 3rd petitioner) if they come within the zone of consideration upon redoing of the Select list. For Petitioners : Mr.Dakshini Reddy, Senior Counsel for Mrs.N.Suneetha For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Special Government Pleader (for R1) Mr.R.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel for TNPSC (for R2) Mr.B.Vijay (for R3)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the Rule of Reservation and the interpretation of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Reservation - Civil Judge (Junior Division) - The court found that the provisional select list published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services was in violation of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and the general rule of reservation. The court directed the Commission to redraw the provisional select list by accommodating the top-ranked candidates in the merit list under the general category and then against the carried forward vacancies as per the quota notified for backlog vacancies, and thereafter place the remaining candidates against the current vacancies by adopting the Rule of Reservation.
Fact of the Case:
The provisional select list for the appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services was challenged. The controversy revolved around the implementation of Reservation under Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and the general rule of reservation to be adopted for carried forward vacancies and current vacancies. The notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the distribution of vacancies, and the procedures followed for conducting the selection process were also under dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisional select list was prepared in violation of Section 27(f) of the Act and the legal principles settled by the Supreme Court. It directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to cancel the provisional select list and prepare a revised list by accommodating the top-ranked candidates in the merit list under the general category and then against the carried forward vacancies as per the quota notified for backlog vacancies, and thereafter place the remaining candidates against the current vacancies by adopting the Rule of Reservation.
Issues: The main issue was the erroneous implementation of the rule of reservation and the methodology adopted for the publication of the provisional select list, specifically in relation to Section 27(f) of the Act 2016 and the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the case of K.Shobana.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 27(f) of the Act and the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the meritorious candidates/toppers are to be placed under the general category. It clarified that the word 'first' in Section 27(f) applies to the filling of backlog vacancies first and the current vacancies thereafter. The court also highlighted the need to follow the Rule of Reservation in a right perspective while preparing the select list.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the writ petitions, directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to cancel the provisional select list, and ordered the preparation of a revised list in accordance with the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in the case of K.Shobana. The revised provisional select list was to be published within two weeks from the date of the order.
C O M M O N O R D E R
(Order of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The provisional select list, published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, for selection and appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services, is under challenge in all these writ petitions.
2. The writ petitioners had participated in the process of selection and were successful in the preliminary examination, main examination and were allowed to participate in the interview/viva voce. The Marks obtained by the writ petitioners are not in dispute nor challenged. The procedures followed for conducting preliminary examination, main examination and interview/viva voce are also not in dispute and remain unchallenged.
3. The area of controversy in all these writ petitions are regarding the implementation of Reservation under Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and the general rule of reservation to be adopted for carried forward vacancies and current vacancies.
4. Let us now look into the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in Notification No.12 of 2023, dated 01.06.2023, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection and appointment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service.
5. Notification states about vacancies, pay scale and distribution of vacancies, extracted as under:
“ 1 . V ACANCIES AND PAY SCALE The vacancies have been arrived at as 245, by taking into account the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P.Public Service Commission [(2008)17 SCC 703], for the cadre of Civil Judge, in the Pay Scale of Rs.27,700-770-33,090-920-
40,450-1080-44,770 + Allowances, as admissible under the Rules.
| Name of the Post | Name of the Service | No. of Vacancies | Scale of Pay |
| Civil Judge (Post Code. 2089) | Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Service Code No.060) | 245 (including 92 carried forward vacancies) | Rs.27,700-770- 33,090-920-40450- 1080-44770 |
2 . D ISTRIBUTION OF VACANCIES The Rule of reservation of appointment is applicable for this recruitment. The distribution of vacancies is put up at ANNEXURE (DV).
(i) First, the selection will be made for '92' carried forward vacancies. [Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016].
(ii) Secondly, the selection will be made for '153' regular vacancies following the rule of reservation.”
6. With reference to the distribution of vacancies, ANNEXURE (DV), enclosed along with the notification, is provided as under :
7. The respective learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr.G.Sankaran, Mrs.Dakshini Reddy and learned counsel Mr.Balan Haridas would submit that the procedures adopted for filling up of the backlog vacancies and the current vacancies are erroneous and directly in violation of the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. 92 vacancies are declared as carry forward vacancies for which Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 would apply. In respect of 153 current vacancies notified, the rule of reservation will be applied.
8. Let us firstly consider the scope of Section 27(f) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (herein after referred as ACT).
9. Section 27(f), third proviso clause denotes that "If the required number of candidates belonging to such communities are not available even then, the vacancies for which selection could not be made shall remain unfilled until the next recruitment year treating them as “backlog” vacancies. In the subsequent year, when direct recruitment is made for the vacancies of that year, namely,
