The selection process must strictly adhere to community-based merit and reservation principles, especially for differently abled candidates.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU, J.)

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 03.02.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.2048 of 2020.

2. The 1^st respondent is the writ petitioner. He possessed MD (Siddha) degree. He is a Scheduled Caste candidate and also differently abled. He applied for the post of Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) in response to a Notification dated 02.08.2017 issued by the appellant / Medical Services Recruitment Board, Chennai. He obtained 57 out of 100 marks in the written examination. However, he was not selected. Challenging the provisional selection list, he filed W.P(MD)No.21528 of 2017. However, at the time of final hearing of the case, he restricted his relief. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.08.2019 with a direction to the respondents therein to consider his claim subject to availability of vacancy. The appellant rejected the writ petitioner's request by holding that the selection was properly done. Questioning the rejection order dated 21.11.2019 as well as the provisional selection list, the 1^st respondent filed the writ petition, contending that the appellant wilfully omitted the scheduled caste meritorious candidates in the general turn in order to accommodate the candidates of other categories in the general turn. If at least first three meritorious SC candidates are accommodated in the general turn, the 1^st respondent's right would have been protected. Further, the appellant made a false statement in the earlier writ petition W.P(MD)No.21528 of 2017 that no single meritorious SC candidate is available to include them in the general turn. Therefore, the 1^st respondent contended that rule of reservation was not followed in strict sense. The Writ Court agreeing with the contentions of the 1^st respondent, allowed the writ petition by impugned order, directing the appellant to appoint the 1^st respondent as Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) against the existing general vacancy. Challenging the said order, the Medical Services Recruitment Board has filed this appeal.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant Board has issued a Notification for recruitment of 101 vacant posts of Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) vide MRB Notification dated 02.08.2017. Pursuant thereto, competitive examination was conducted on 08.10.2017 and the marks scored by the candidates who appeared in the written examination, were published in the Medical Services Recruitment Board website on 09.10.2017. He would further submit that 200 candidates in the order of communal rotation following the rule of reservation as ordered in G.O(Ms)No.55, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 08.04.2010, G.O.No.13, Welfare of Differently Abled Persons (DAP.3.2) Department, dated 02.03.2016 and G.O(Ms)No.21, Welfare of Differently Abled Persons (DAP 3.2) Department, dated 30.05.2017, were called for to attend the certificate verification. As far as the post of Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) is concerned, candidates with only locomotor disability of 40% to 70% in the lower limb alone are eligible to be considered under the reservation for differently abled persons vide G.O.Ms.No.13, Welfare of Differently Abled Persons (DAP 3.2) Department, dated 02.03.2016.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that after completion of the certificate verification, 101 candidates were provisionally selected in the order of communal rotation as specified in G.O(Ms)No.55 and sponsored to the Director of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy, Chennai, for issuing appointment orders, which includes 4 differently abled per