Madras High Court
M.Harikrishnan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 December, 2021
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
1.M.Harikrishnan
2.P.Vigneshwaran .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai-9.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai-9.
3. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar
Park Town, Chennai-3. .. Respondents
___________
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus to call for
the records relating to the impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.
141 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (FS2) Department dated
19.07.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent, quash the same in so far as
the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of
Inspector of Fisheries is concerned and consequently restore the
qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Inspector
of Fisheries as per G.O.Ms.No.225 Forest and Fisheries Department
dated 23.02.1985.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents Mr.C.Harsha Raj,
Additional Government
Pleader for R1 and R2
Mr.V.Govardhan for
M/s.Karthik Rajan for R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
The writ petition challenges the notification in G.O.Ms.No.141,
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (FS2) Department, dated
19.07.2018 issued by the second respondent, amending the
qualification for the post of Inspector of Fisheries in the Special
Rules for Tamil Nadu Fisheries Subordinate Service.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred Annexure
appended to Rules to show post of Inspector of Fisheries was filled
originally by way of direct recruitment from and amongst the
candidates possessing the qualification given in the unamended
Rules, with a proviso to give first preference to the candidates
possessing Bachelor of Fisheries Science (B.F.Sc.) Degree from
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University or its equivalent and if sufficient
number of such candidates are not available, the candidates
possessing other qualifications shall be considered. By the
amendment in the Rules, the preference to the qualification of
B.F.Sc. Degree has been taken away.
3. The challenge to the amendment has been made alleging
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According
to learned counsel for the petitioners, preference to the candidates
holding the degree of Bachelor of Fisheries Science Degree was
given based on intelligible differentia. Thus, it could not have been
withdrawn by way of an amendment.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that preference
to certain qualification would be given when such qualification is
higher to other qualification or based on other criteria. The
respondents evolved Rules to provide preference to qualification of
degree in B.F.Sc. from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University or its
equivalent degree based on the aforesaid criteria. Therefore, the
amendment to the Rules taking away the preference to the
candidates in possession of the qualification of the degree of B.F.Sc.
from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University or equivalent degree be
set aside, as it is offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India.
5. To support the argument, learned counsel for the
petitioners has made a reference to the judgment of Supreme court
in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad
Mishra [(2008) 10 SCC 139]. The issue therein was similar to the
issue involved in this petition. The Apex Court held that the
classification is permissible if it is based on intelligible differentia
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
and has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In the
instant case, classification of the candidates possessing the
qualification of B.F.Sc. degree was made on the parameters
considered by the Apex Court in the case supra.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a further
reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Government of
A.P. v. P.Dilli Kumar [(1993) 2 SCC 310], wherein, a candidate
possessing the qualification of Post Graduate was given preference
in the matter of direct recruitment as well as in promotion. The
Apex Court did not interfere in the preference given to Post
Graduate candidates. Learned counsel submits that applying the
dictum of the Apex Court in case supra, the amendment to the
notification impugned herein may be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further made a
reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Binoy Viswam v.
Union of India [(2017) 7 SCC 59]. Paragraphs 78 to 80 of that
judgment were referred to show under what circumstances a
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
provision can be challenged. The Supreme Court permitted
challenge if amendment lacks legislative competence or if it is in
contravention of the fundamental rights stipulated in Part III of the
Constitution. A reference to paragraph 83 is also given. Therein,
referring to the judicial review permitted by the Indian Courts, issue
was decided. Learned counsel prays to allow the petition as it falls
within the four corners of the permissible review by the High Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.U.Joshi v.
Accountant General [(2003) 2 SCC 632] and submitted that the
amendment to the Rule withdrawing first preference to the
candidate holding B.F.Sc. degree or equivalent qualification to the
post of Inspector of Fisheries, by the impugned notification dated
19.07.2018 may be struck down.
9. The writ petition has been seriously contested by the side
opposite. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that
amendment to the Rule has been made after considering the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
recommendation made by the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission indicating violation of equality guaranteed under Article
16 of the Constitution of India in the existing Rule.
10. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission found that the
candidates getting lesser marks in the selection, are recommended
for appointment based on the first preference given to the degree
holder of B.F.Sc., thereby sacrificing the merit in the selection.
11. According to learned Additional Government Pleader, a
candidate holding degree in B.F.Sc. or equivalent degree gets
appointment even if he obtains lesser marks in the selection,
thereby merit is sacrificed. It is due to first preference to the
candidates having qualification of B.F.Sc. Thus, the State
Government considered the recommendation of the Public Service
Commission and after finding the recommendation to be just and
reasonable, amended the Rules.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
12. According to learned Additional Government Pleader, the
amendment was made not only for equivalence to the candidates in
possession of the required qualification, but to include those, who
are having qualification of B.F.Sc. from University other than the
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. The purpose of amendment was
to maintain the principle of equality enshrined under Article 16 of
the Constitution of India in the public employment. The detailed
reasons have been stated in the counter filed by the second
respondent.
13. Learned Additional Government Pleader further submits
that when the Administration is having the authority to analyse the
issue within their competence and make an amendment to the
Rules, the same cannot be struck down, unless there is material to
show amendment without legislative competence or in violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter III of the
Constitution.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
14. In support of his above contention, learned Additional
Government Pleader made a reference to the judgment of the Apex
Court in Union of India v. S.Maadasamy [(2019) 6 SCC 674],
wherein, the Apex Court, relying upon the earlier decision in the
case of P.U.Joshi in paragraph 6.5, held in paragraph 6.6. that when
a conscious decision was taken while amending Rules by the
Government, after considering the pros and cons of the matter, it
cannot be struck down. The challenge to the amendment is not for
want of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights.
15. According to the Apex Court, judicial review in such
matters is limited. It is to be left to the administration having the
authority to determine the required qualification for the post.
Therefore, it is the submission of learned Additional Government
Pleader that the writ petition has to be dismissed.
16. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties
and perused the records.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
17. A challenge to Government Order dated 19.07.2018 has
been made whereby the qualification to the post of Inspector
Fisheries was amended. As learned counsel for the petitioners made
a reference to the qualification to the post of Inspector of Fisheries
prior to the amendment and subsequent to the amendment, we are
reproducing the same for ready reference, as under.
Qualification to the post of Inspector of Fisheries prior to
amendment:
Sl. Post Method of Qualification
No. (1) appointment (3)
2. Inspector of (i) Direct Recruitment (i) Must possess a degree of
Fisheries Bachelor of Science (B.F.Sc.)
awarded by the Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University or its
equivalent degree; or
(ii) Must possess the Associate
Diploma in Fisheries Science
of the Central Institute of
Fisheries Education, Bombay;
or
(iii) Must possess a degree of M.A.
or M.Sc. in Zoology or
Marine Biology;
Provided that, first preference
shall be given to the
candidates possessing B.F.Sc.,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
Sl. Post Method of Qualification
No. (1) appointment (3)
degree of Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University and
only if sufficient number of
such candidates are not
available, the candidates
possessing other
qualifications shall be
considered.
Qualification to the post of Inspector of Fisheries subsequent to
amendment:
(a) For the items (i), (ii) and (iii) and the proviso thereunder
in column (3) against the entry "(i) Direct Recruitment" in column (2)
and the corresponding entry "2. Inspector of Fisheries" in column (1)
thereof, the following entries shall be substituted, namely.-
"Must possess a degree of Bachelor of Fisheries
Science awarded by the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University
or any other University or Institution recognised by the
University Grants Commission
Or
Must possess a degree of M.Sc. in Zoology or
Marine Biology or Coastal Aquaculture or Mariculture or
Special Zoology or Coastal Engineering or Oceanography
awarded by any University Grants Commission".
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
18. A perusal of the unamended Rules shows several
qualifications for the post of Inspector of Fisheries to be filled by
direct recruitment. The qualification therein is not only a degree of
Bachelor of Fisheries Science, awarded by the Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University or its equivalent degree, but also Associate
Diploma in Fisheries Science of the Central Institute of Fisheries
Education, Bombay or degree of M.A. or M.Sc. in Zoology or Marine
Biology. The proviso to the amended Rule gives first preference to
the candidates possessing qualification of B.F.Sc. degree of Tamil
Nadu Agricultural University and only if sufficient number of such
candidates are not available, the candidates possessing other
qualification shall be considered.
19. By virtue of the unamended Rule, en bloc preference was
given to a candidate possessing the qualification of B.F.Sc. degree
awarded by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University or its equivalent,
ignoring the candidates possessing other qualification. The selection
to the post of Inspector of Fisheries by way of direct recruitment is
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
conducted by the Public Service Commission under the unamended
Rules. It was realized that the candidates obtaining higher marks in
the selection are not appointed, while the candidates having the
qualification of B.F.Sc. degree with lesser marks in the selection are
appointed on account of the first preference, thereby the merit is
sacrificed, offending rule of equality under Article 16 of the
Constitution of India.
20. In the light of the above, the State Government
considered the recommendation made by the Public Service
Commission and found reasons to amend the qualification to take
away the preference given to a particular qualification.
21. A challenge to the said amendment has been made mainly
on the ground that preference given to a particular qualification was
after considering it to be higher qualification and based on the
intelligible differentia permissible for that purpose.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
22. A reference to the qualification for the post of Assistant
Director has been given to show preference to a particular
qualification in matter of promotion. In this regard, we would first
refer to the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners.
23. In U.P. Power Corporation, relied by learned counsel for
the petitioners, the Apex Court has permitted the classification if it
is based on intelligible differentia or for object sought to be
achieved. In the light of the ratio laid down in paragraph 37 of the
said decision, we have examined the matter and find no basis for
classification of the qualification in the present case. The detailed
counter to the writ petition filed by the second respondent rather
shows violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India due to
preference to the qualification of B.F.Sc.
24. The other judgment referred to by learned counsel for the
petitioners is Government of A.P. v. P.Dilli Kumar supra. In the
said case, preference was given to the candidates possessing higher
qualification than the required qualification provided under the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
Rules. The preference was not found violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India being higher qualification. In the instant
case, we do not find the qualification possessed by the petitioners
to be higher qualification and therefore, the judgment supra would
not apply to the present case.
25. The other judgment referred to by learned counsel for the
petitioners is Binoy Viswam supra. Paragraphs 78 to 80 of the said
judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference.
"78. With this, we advert to the discussion on the grounds of
judicial review that are available to adjudge the validity of a piece of
legislation passed by the Legislature. We have already mentioned that
a particular law or a provision contained in a statute can be
invalidated on two grounds, namely: (i) it is not within the
competence of the Legislature which passed the law, and/or (ii) it is
in contravention of any of the fundamental rights stipulated in Part
III of the Constitution or any other right/provision of the
Constitution. These contours of the judicial review are spelled out in
the clear terms in case of State of MP Vs. Rakesh Kohli [(2012) 6
SCC 312 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 481], and particularly the following
paragraphs:
“16. The statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature
cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly. The court must be able to
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
hold beyond any iota of doubt that the violation of the constitutional
provisions was so glaring that the legislative provision under
challenge cannot stand. Sans flagrant violation of the constitutional
provisions, the law made by Parliament or a State Legislature is not
declared bad.
17. This Court has repeatedly stated that legislative enactment
can be struck down by court only on two grounds, namely (i) that the
appropriate legislature does not have the competence to make the
law, and (ii) that it does not (sic) take away or abridge any of the
fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution or any
other constitutional provisions. In State of AP Vs. McDowell and Co.
[(1996) 3 SCC 709], while dealing with the challenge to an
enactment based on Article 14, this Court stated in para 43 of the
Report as follows: (SCC pp. 737-38) :
“43. … A law made by Parliament or the legislature can
be struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone
viz. (1) lack of legislative competence, and (2) violation of any of
the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution
or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third
ground. … if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article
14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of
the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein.
Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by Sub-Clauses (a) to (g) of
Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved
by any of the Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No
enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
or unreasonable. Some or the other constitutional infirmity has
to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be
struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified.
Parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the
representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be
aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for
them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom.”
...
26. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1958 SC
731], the Constitution Bench further observed that there was always
a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and the
burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show that there has been a
clear violation of the constitutional principles. It stated in para 15 of
the Report as under: (AIR pp. 740-41)
“15. … The courts, it is accepted, must presume
that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates
the needs of its own people, that its laws are directed to
problems made manifest by experience and that its
discriminations are based on adequate grounds. It must be
borne in mind that the legislature is free to recognise
degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those
cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest and
finally that in order to sustain the presumption of
constitutionality the court may take into consideration
matters of common knowledge, matters of common report,
the history of the times and may assume every state of facts
which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation."
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
27. The above legal position has been reiterated by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi
[AIR 1959 SC 942].
28. In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India [AIR 1960 SC
554 : 1960 Crl.LJ 735], inter alia, while referring to the earlier two
decisions, namely, Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar [AIR
1955 SC 661] and Mahant Moti Das, it was observed in para 8 of
the Report as follows: (Hamdard Dawakhana case, AIR p. 559):
“8. Therefore, when the constitutionality of an
enactment is challenged on the ground of violation of any
of the Articles in Part III of the Constitution, the
ascertainment of its true nature and character becomes
necessary i.e. its subject-matter, the area in which it is
intended to operate, its purport and intent have to be
determined. In order to do so it is legitimate to take into
consideration all the factors such as history of the
legislation, the purpose thereof, the surrounding
circumstances and conditions, the mischief which it
intended to suppress, the remedy for the disease which the
legislature resolved to cure and the true reason for the
remedy….”
In Hamdard Dawakhana, the Court also followed the statement of
law in Mahant Moti Das and the two earlier decisions, namely,
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India [AIR 1951 SC 41 : 1950
SCR 869] and State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara [AIR 1951 SC 318 :
1951 (52) Crl.L.J. 1361] and reiterated the principle that
presumption was always in favour of constitutionality of an
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
enactment.
xxxxxx
30. A well-known principle that in the field of taxation, the
legislature enjoys a greater latitude for classification, has been noted
by this Court in a long line of cases. Some of these decisions are
Steelworth Ltd. v. State of Assam [1962 Supp. (2) SCR 589]; Gopal
Narain v. State of U.P.[AIR 1964 SC 370]; Ganga Sugar Corpn. Ltd.
v. State of U.P. [1980 (1) SCC 223 : 1980 SCC (Tax 90); R.K. Garg
v. Union of India [1981 (4) SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30]; and State
of W.B. v. E.I.T.A. India Ltd. [2003 (5) SCC 239].”
79. Again in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
[2008 (6) SCC 1 : 3 SCEC 35] , this Court made the following
pertinent observations:
“219. A legislation passed by Parliament can be challenged
only on constitutionally recognised grounds. Ordinarily, grounds of
attack of a legislation is whether the legislature has legislative
competence or whether the legislation is ultra vires the provisions of
the Constitution. If any of the provisions of the legislation violates
fundamental rights or any other provisions of the Constitution, it
could certainly be a valid ground to set aside the legislation by
invoking the power of judicial review. A legislation could also be
challenged as unreasonable if it violates the principles of equality
adumbrated in our Constitution or it unreasonably restricts the
fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. A legislation
cannot be challenged simply on the ground of unreasonableness
because that by itself does not constitute a ground. The validity of a
constitutional amendment and the validity of plenary legislation have
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
to be decided purely as questions of constitutional law. This Court in
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [1977 (3) SCC 592] said: (SCC
p. 660, para 149) :
“149. … if a question brought before the court is
purely a political question not involving determination of
any legal or constitutional right or obligation, the court
would not entertain it, since the court is concerned only
with adjudication of legal rights and liabilities.”
Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the legislation
itself was intended to please a section of the community as
part of the vote catching mechanism is not a legally
acceptable plea and it is only to be rejected.”
80) Furthermore, it also needs to be specifically noted that
this Court emphasised that apart from the aforesaid two grounds no
third ground is available to invalidate any piece of legislation. In this
behalf it would be apposite to reproduce the following observations
from State of A.P. & Ors. v. McDowell & Co. & Ors., which is a
judgment rendered by a three Judge Bench of this Court:
“43...A law made by Parliament or the legislature
can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two
grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and
(2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in
Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional
provision. There is no third ground. We do not wish to
enter into a discussion of the concepts of procedural
unreasonableness and substantive unreasonableness —
concepts inspired by the decisions of United States
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
Supreme Court. Even in U.S.A., these concepts and in
particular the concept of substantive due process have
proved to be of unending controversy, the latest thinking
tending towards a severe curtailment of this ground
(substantive due process). The main criticism against the
ground of substantive due process being that it seeks to set
up the courts as arbiters of the wisdom of the legislature in
enacting the particular piece of legislation. It is enough for
us to say that by whatever name it is characterised, the
ground of invalidation must fall within the four corners of
the two grounds mentioned above. In other words, say, if
an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can
be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the
equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein.
Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any
of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Sub-Clauses (a) to
(g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found
not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and
so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that
it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other
constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating
an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground
that court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the
legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of
the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the
needs of the people and what is good and bad for them.
The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom. In this
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
connection, it should be remembered that even in the case
of administrative action, the scope of judicial review is
limited to three grounds, viz., (i) unreasonableness, which
can more appropriately be called irrationality, (ii)
illegality and (iii) procedural impropriety (see Council of
Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service [1985 AC
374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL) : (1984) 3 WLR 1174]
which decision has been accepted by this Court as well).
The applicability of doctrine of proportionality even in
administrative law sphere is yet a debatable issue. (See the
opinions of Lords Lowry and Ackner in R. v. Secy. of State
for Home Deptt., ex p Brind [1991 (1) AC 696 : 1991 (2)
WLR 588 : (1991) 1 All ER 720 (HL)] AC at 766-67 and
762.) It would be rather odd if an enactment were to be
struck down by applying the said principle when its
applicability even in administrative law sphere is not fully
and finally settled.”
26. The Apex Court permitted judicial review to strike down
the provision if it lacks legislative competence or is violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. In
paragraph 83 of the said judgment quoted herein, the jurisdiction
exercised by the Indian Court has also been referred and the same
is quoted herein for ready reference.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
"83. It is, thus, clear that in exercise of power of judicial
review, Indian Courts are invested with powers to strike down
primary legislation enacted by the Parliament or the State
legislatures. However, while undertaking this exercise of judicial
review, the same is to be done at three levels. In the first stage, the
Court would examine as to whether impugned provision in a
legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights or the
Constitutional provisions (substantive judicial review) or it falls foul
of the federal distribution of powers (procedural judicial review). If it
is not found to be so, no further exercise is needed as challenge would
fail. On the other hand, if it is found that Legislature lacks
competence as the subject legislated was not within the powers
assigned in the list in VII Schedule, no further enquiry is needed and
such a law is to be declared as ultra vires the Constitution. However,
while undertaking substantive judicial review, if it is found that the
impugned provision appears to be violative of fundamental rights or
other Constitutional rights, the Court reaches the second stage of
review. At this second phase of enquiry, the Court is supposed to
undertake the exercise as to whether the impugned provision can still
be saved by reading it down so as to bring it in conformity with the
Constitutional provisions. If that is not achievable then the enquiry
enters the third stage. If the offending portion of the statute is
severable, it is severed and the Court strikes down the impugned
provision declaring the same as unconstitutional."
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
27. Challenge to the amendment in the instant case is not on
the grounds laid down by the Apex Court in the case supra. It is not
that the respondents were lacking competence to amend the Rule
or it is infringing fundamental rights under Part III of the
Constitution.
28. Thus, the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the
petitioners in the case of P.U. Joshi and P.Dilli Kumar do not
provide any assistance or support to the petitioners, rather as per
the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the judicial review would not
be permissible on a subject in the domain of the administration.
29. At this stage, let us analyse the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioners in reference to the alleged violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Article 16 requires
equality in public employment. It cannot be denied on the ground of
religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, etc.
The exception to it has been provided under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution of India where reservation has been permitted in
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
favour of backward classes of citizens.
30. The first preference to the candidate possessing the
qualification of B.F.Sc. degree from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural
University under the unamended Rule was resulting in literal
reservation in favour of them, offending Article 16(2) of the
Constitution of India. It is more so that it is not based on intelligible
differentia. It is for that reason that the other qualifications
provided under the Rules, are said to be appropriate qualifications
for the post. The B.F.Sc. degree is not higher qualification to those
qualifications.
31. That apart, the State Government has applied its mind
before bringing the impugned notification. The information given by
the Public Service Commission was showing that by virtue of the
first preference, the candidates possessing qualification of B.F.Sc.
are getting appointment even after obtaining lesser marks in the
selection, to the post of Inspector of Fisheries.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
32. To demonstrate the aforesaid in a given case, a candidate
securing 50% mark in the selection to the post of Inspector of
Fisheries with the qualification of B.F.Sc. would get appointment
vis-a-vis the candidate getting 80% mark in the same selection only
for the reason that he is in possession of other qualification than of
B.F.Sc. Thus, the candidate obtaining 80% in the selection would be
denied appointment only for the reason that he is not in possession
of the qualification of B.F.Sc. The aforesaid demonstrate sacrifice to
the merit due to preference to the qualification of B.F.Sc.
33. In view of the above, we find reasons for the amendment
to be not only appropriate, but wholly justified to bring the Rules in
conformity with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The judicial
review by the Courts would not be permissible in a matter of
qualification of the post, unless it is shown to be without legislative
competence or offend a fundamental right guaranteed under Part
III of the Constitution. Which qualification is appropriate for the
post lies in domain of the administration.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
34. In view of the discussions made above, we are unable to
accept the challenge to the amended Rules by G.O. dated
19.07.2018 and accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.23885 of
2019 is also dismissed.
(M.N.B., ACJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
03.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
kpl/drm
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai-9.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government
Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George
Chennai-9.
3. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar
Park Town, Chennai-3.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
(kpl)
W.P.No.17500 of 2019
03.12.2021
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
