Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Priya Dharsini on 1 July, 2021
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
4. The Director General of Police,
O/o.The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 004 ... Appellants in
all Appeals
vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1 of 8
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
S.Priya Dharsini ...Respondent in
W.A.No.658 of 2020
J.Manimaran ...Respondent in
W.A.No.659 of 2020
S.Dineshmoorthy ...Respondent in
W.A.No.660 of 2020
****
Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to
set aside the common order dated 06.09.2019 made in W.P.Nos.26520,
26513 and 26496 of 2019.
****
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Neelakandandan,
in all WAs State Government Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
in all WAs for M/s.Ajmal Associates
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.]
Writ Petitions were originally filed seeking a direction to the
appellants herein to consider the respondents/writ petitioners for
appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Technical), pursuant to
the application of the provisional selection list issued by the second
appellant on 14.12.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
2. The Writ petitioners had cleared the written examination on
30.09.2018 and also appeared for the physical measurement test and
viva-voce. On 14.12.2018, they were provisionally selected. However,
during the medical examination, a new criteria was introduced to the effect
that the candidates should possess eye-vision of 6/6. Since these
respondents/writ petitioners do not have the requisite eye-vision of 6/6,
their appointments were denied. According to the Writ Petitioners, the said
criteria of medical examination regarding the eye-vision, was not there in
the recruitment notification.
3. In similar circumstances, at the relevant point, certain Writ
Petitions were filed before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in
W.P(MD).Nos.5441 of 2019 etc., The said Writ Petitions were allowed on
30.04.2019, directing the authorities to consider the candidature of the
similarly placed petitioners therein to that of the respondents herein.
Against the said order dated 30.04.2019, Writ Appeals were preferred in
W.A(MD).Nos.941 to 953 of 2020. The said writ appeals were dismissed
on 15.02.2021 on the following lines:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
"7.We do not find any merit in these Writ
Appeals, as rightly submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
that it is not a case, the respondents cannot
function by wearing glasses. The Notification
does not specify the extent of visual standards,
even otherwise, it is clear, as the respondents
can perform by wearing glasses, their
candidature cannot be rejected by making them
to undergo a test without wearing glasses. The
question is the suitability to the job and not
otherwise. The classification sought to be made
is certainly violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. If it is approved, a
candidate, who is wearing specs would become
disentitled for being considered to the post. It is
an indirect way of fixing qualification on the sole
premise that a candidate wearing glasses cannot
be considered. One has to see the eligibility and
suitability of the candidate to the post, but such
eligibility cannot be fixed on the basis of a
candidate without specs, vis~a~vis, a candidate
with specs. Thus, looking from any perspective,
we do not find any reason to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, as we
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
are in respectful agreement with the submission
made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondents that the Government Order
relied upon is outdated, opaque and contrary to
the wisdoms expressed by the Hon-ble Apex
Court. It is the insufficient/inadequate eyesight
that makes a person to wear a glass. Once such
glass is worn, then, that deficiency goes.
Therefore, such person becomes eligible on par
with the other person, who performs without
glasses.
8. In such view of the matter, the
classification sought to be made has got no
rationale, as the job is sought to be undertaken as
a whole. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals stand
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
9.At this juncture, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that a direction may be issued to give
appointment orders, as the respondents are
awaiting for quite sometime despite having
become qualified with their name in the
provisional list.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
10.We are inclined to agree with the said
submission made. Accordingly, the appellants are
directed to give appointment orders to the
respondents within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
4. Heard Mr.R.Neelakandandan, learned State Government Counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. It is stated by the learned State Government Counsel that against
the judgment passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, they are
desirous of preferring an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. However, it is agreed by the learned counsels appearing on both
sides that a similar order may be passed in these Writ Appeals also, as it
relates to same recruitment.
7. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed with a direction to
the appellants to give appointment orders to the respondents/writ petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
01.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
srn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
srn
W.A. Nos.658, 659 and 660 of 2020 and
C.M.P. Nos.9267, 9270 and 9271 of 2021
01.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
