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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
M.Balaji – Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Public Service – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA W.P.No.19718 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.17060 of 2016 M.Balaji .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep.by its Secretary, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

2.The Controller of Examinations The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

...Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus,Directing the Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission the first respondent herein to declare that the petitioner got selected in Group II A Examination pursuant to the notification No.1 of 2014 dated 06.02.2014 and consequently direct the TNPSC to forward the name of the petitioner to the concerned department so as to get appointment order to the petitioner to join the post with effect from the date on which the selectees of the above notification No.1 of 2014 joined the post with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner : M/s.G.Sridevi For Respondents :

(for R1 & R2) : M/s.G.Hema

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking a st mandamus to the 1 respondent to declare the petitioner as selected in the Group II A Examination pursuant to the Notification No.1 of 2014 st dated 06.02.2014 and consequently direct the 1 respondent to forward the name of the petitioner to the concerned department for appointment.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he comes from a poor family and had lost his father who was an agricultural coolie in the year 1991. The petitioner's mother had single handedly raised her children which included the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that he had completed his B.A. History in the year 2013 and was doing sundry jobs to take care of his family.

st

3. In the month of February 2014, the 1 respondent called for applications for the Combined Civil Services Examination-II (Non- interview posts) (Group II-A Services) vide Notification No.1/2014 for 2269 vacant posts of Personal Clerk, Assistants and Lower Divisional Clerks in various departments in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service/Secretiat Services/Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service. The qualifications prescribed for the above said posts was graduation in BA/B.Sc./B.com. For certain posts, like Legislative Assembly Secretariat Services, an additional Technical Qualification such as Higher Grade in Typewriting and Shorthand was prescribed. The age limit as on 01.07.2014 was prescribed to be between 18 and 30 years.

4. The petitioner had applied online for the said post on

13.02.2014 and was given a Registration Id.No.401089639. He had also received his hall ticket with a Registration No.012315061 for the written examination that was scheduled to be held on 29.06.2014 between 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the venue was PAK Palanisamy Higher Secondary School, Old Washermanpet. The petitioner had also written the examination to the best of his ability.

5. The petitioner would submit that 5 months after he had st written the examination, the officials from the 1 respondent's office had visited his residence on 27.11.2014 and handed him a letter dated 26.11.2014 directing him to appear at the office of the Controller of st Examination in the 1 respondent's office at 11 a.m. on 28.11.2014. A copy of the letter was also received by him through Speed Post. On 28.11.2014, the petitioner went to the office of the 1st respondent as directed where he was questioned regarding the examination he had already taken, including where he had written the exam, his residential address, email address, and whether he had submitted his answer sheet. The petitioner then wanted to know why he was subjected to this questioning at which point in time he was told that it was only to cross verify the residential address in the identity card. They had also threatened the petitione

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