Madras High Court
R.Pradeep Kumar vs Tamilnadu Public Service ... on 21 January, 2022
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21 / 01 / 2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
AND MP NO.2 OF 2013
R.Pradeep Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamilnadu Public Service Commission
Represented by its Secretary
No.3, Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai - 600 003.
2.Government of Tamilnadu
Represented by Secretary to Government
Revenue Department
Fort St. George, Madras. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
proceedings relating to the selection to Group - I Services 2011 (Service Code
No.001) initiated by Advertisement No.257 dated 29.12.2010 of the 1st
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
work out and notify the number of posts for each reservation category and
apply the reservation for SC Arunthathiar correctly as per the rules by
adjusting the meritorious selected candidates of SCA against general quota or
SC general and make appointments without applying horizontal reservation
for women at the preliminary stage and consequently appoint the petitioner to
any of the Group - I posts.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijay Shankar
For Respondent-1 : Mr.V.Govardhanan
Standing Counsel for TNPSC
For Respondent-2 : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Government Advocate
ORDER
Aggrieved over the non-selection to the Posts included in
Group-I Services, 2011, under the reserved category of Scheduled Caste
(Arunthathiar) the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition.
2.The petitioner belong to Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiar)
(hereinafter called as SC (A). He is entitled to reservation under the Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
Nadu Act 4 of 2009. The Government of Tamil Nadu earmarked 18% of
vacancies for Scheduled Caste (SC) and an internal reservation of 3%
earmarked for SC (A). Therefore, from the year 2009, every recruitment to
the Government service, candidates belonging to SC (A) are entitled to 1/6 th of
vacancies earmarked for SC.
3.The first respondent / Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
(TNPSC) vide Notification dated 29.12.2010 called for examination to
Group-I Services to different posts viz., Deputy Collector, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
District Registrar, Assistant Director of Rural Development and Divisional
Fire Officer. The total number of vacancies notified was 108 and in addition
to that, 23 vacancies (22 SC backlog and 1 ST backlog vacancies) were also
notified.
4.The petitioner passed the preliminary examination held on
22.05.2011 and the main examinations held on 28.07.2012 and 29.07.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
The exam results were published on 10.01.2013 and he was called to attend
the interview on 05.02.2013. The marks for the written examination and oral
tests were published in the TNPSC's website on 06.02.2013. The petitioner
secured 290 marks in the written exam and 42 marks in the interview (in total
332 marks). However, the break-up details of individuals called for
counselling under different communities were not indicated. Even though the
petitioner had secured 332 marks and ranked at 8th place, he was not selected
and two candidates, who have secured 319 and 316.50 marks were selected
and appointed. It was found that there were lot of infirmities and certain
candidates belonging to SC (A) who had secured high marks were selected
under General Quota and they were accommodated in the Quota meant for
SC (General) and to other posts other than for which they applied. The
horizontal reservation (reserved for women) was made at every stage illegally
depriving the petitioner from securing selection and appointment. The
selection, as such, is contrary to the procedure laid down and contrary to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
5.The first respondent / TNPSC filed a detailed counter affidavit,
wherein it is stated that as per the Notification, totally 8 vacancies were
announced for SC(A) including four backlog vacancies and two women
vacancies. Nine SC(A) candidates were called for counselling as per the
particulars given below:-
S. Rank Reg.No. Name Marks Community Post selected Called for
No. No. counselling under
which category
1 2 00617033 Saravanamurthy, G 435.00 SC (A) Deputy Collector GR (G) - 2/22
2 32 99905263 Suresh, N. 376.00 SC (A) Deputy Collector SC(A)(G)-1/6
3 49 99937134 Vijay Babu, C. 369.00 SC (A) Deputy Collector SC(A)(G)-2/6
4 114 01505110 Murugesan, P. 354.00 SC (A) Deputy Collector SC(A)(G)-3/6
5 159 99966027 Vimal Raj, G. 347.00 SC (A) Deputy Collector SC(A)(G)-4/6
6 196 01213068 Kavitha, R. 336.50 SC (A) Deputy Collector SC(A)(G)-5/6
7 215 99823103 Jaya, S. 332.50 SC (A) A.C. Commercial Taxes SC(A)(G)-6/6
8 239 99999048 Maheswari, K. 319.00 SC (A) D.S.P. SC(A)(W)-1/2
9 242 99938189 Devaki, M. 316.50 SC (A) District Registrar SC(A)(W)-2/2
6.The marks secured by the last candidate who have been called
for counselling in the following categories are as follows:-
GT (G) - 22/22 - 384.50
SC (G) - 29/29 - 346.50
SC (W) - 4/4 - 340.00
SC (A)(G) - 6/6 - 332.50
SC (A)(W) - 2/2 - 316.50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
7.The first candidate among the SC(A) category, who had
secured 435.00 marks got selected for counselling under GT(G) category and
not against vacancies meant for SC(A). The cut-off marks for SC(A)(G)
category is 332.50. The petitioner has secured 332.00 marks and fall short by
0.50 marks. Further, since SC(A) female candidates also compete against the
vacancies meant for SC(A) male candidates, the selection and appointment of
the candidates shown as against Serial Nos.6 and 7 are in order.
8.In G.O.Ms.No.65, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (K)
Department, dated 27.05.2009, it has been stated as follows: -
"Now the Government of Tamil Nadu has enacted
Act No.4 of 2009, thereby offering reservation to
Arunthathiyars on preferential basis within the reservation
available for Schedules Castes and the said Act came, roster
prescribed in the Government Order third read above is
revised as in the Annexure to the order. The Government
directed that even after filling up of the required
appointments or posts reserved for Arunthathiyars on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
preferential basis, if more number of qualified
Arunthathiyars are available, such excess number of
candidates of Arunthathiyars shall be entitled to compete
with the Scheduled Castes other than Arunthathiyars in
the inter-se merit among them and if any appointments or
posts reserved for Arunthathiyars remain unfilled for want
of adequate number of qualified candidates, it shall be
filled up by Scheduled Castes other than Arunthathiyars."
9.The selection was made as per merit and all the vacancies
reserved for SC (A) Category are filled up. Roster has been strictly followed
as per Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 2009. The women candidates were selected
against the vacancies reserved for them and the posts were duly filled up.
Further, the candidates placed against Serial Nos.8 and 9 were selected and
appointed against SC(A)(W) category as women candidates and the petitioner
could not be called for counselling against those vacancies. Therefore, all the
vacancies meant for the post of Deputy Collector were filled up and the
petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. He lost the race by just 0.05
marks and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
10.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner would produce the
reply sent by the first respondent under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated
10.02.2014 for the application made on 14.09.2013 and the information
reveals the fact that two posts were reserved under SC(A)(W) in Group - I
Services examination for 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 as notified
in Advertisement No.257 dated 29.12.2012, out of 131 vacancies in the posts
included in Group - I Services. The first post was Assistant Commissioner
(CT) (Women) and the second post was District Registrar. It was replied to
the second question that for the purpose of admitting the candidates under
SC(A)(G) category to the main examination for the posts included in Group-I
Services was 183 in the preliminary examination held on 05.06.2011.
Therefore, it is clear that the persons who have secured 183 marks alone are
entitled to participate in the main examination under SC(A)(G). In reply to
question No.3, it is stated that the cut off marks for SC(A)(W) category to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
write the main examination for Group-I Services was fixed as 159. As
admitted by the first respondent in the counter affidavit, the sixth candidate
viz., Kavitha, R., has secured 159 marks. But, she was selected under
SC(A)(G) category based on the marks obtained in the main written
examination.
12.It is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in NIRAVKUMAR DILIPBHAI MAKWANA VS. GUJARAT
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS [2019 (7) SCC 383]
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had categorically declared that a person
who avails of an age relaxation at the initial stage will necessarily avail of the
same relaxation even at the final stage. In that case, age relaxation was the
issue. In the present case, relaxation in the cut off marks in respect of Women
category is under issue.
13.From the list produced by the first respondent, it is noted that
Serial No.6 - Kavitha, R., was admitted to the main examination after availing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
the concession of cut off marks under SC (A)(W) category. Therefore, she can
contest for the post available under Women category and cannot avail the post
meant for SC (A)(G) category. Once she has taken a particular channel
availing some concession, she can pursue the same channel till the final stage
and she cannot jump to other channel depriving a candidate, who had secured
the cut off marks meant for the other category i.e., SC(A)(G) category, by
securing cut off marks above 183. The petitioner was admitted to the main
written examination again under SC(A)(G) category after securing more than
183 marks. He is entitled to compete with others under SC(A)(G). If no
candidates are available, then the meritorious candidates available in the very
same category namely SC can be considered for filling up of the vacancies as
per the Government Order issued. But, the candidates mentioned at Serial
Nos.6 and 7 who have secured lesser than cut off marks meant for SC(A)(G)
category cannot claim selection and appointment to the posts, to which they
have applied and admitted to examination.
14.For example, in Post Graduate Medical admission, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
students are supposed to exercise an option to a particular speciality.
Sometimes, even a more meritorious candidate could not get admission due to
scarcity or non-availability of the seats in that particular speciality. Thereby,
they would not secure admission to Post Graduate course. Whereas, the
students who have secured lesser marks than those who have opted for some
other speciality would secure the seats because there are no takers. It does not
mean that the meritorious students who have applied for some other speciality
should be permitted to take up the course not opted by them.
15.Likewise, in this case, the candidate mentioned at Serial No.6
has opted for a vacancy available under SC(A)(W) category. Having secured
0.05 marks more than the SC (G) category, she cannot usurp the vacancy
under SC(A)(G) category. She will be entitled only when no candidates were
available for filling up the post under that category. When a candidate like the
petitioner is waiting in the queue, he should have been provided with a post
and not the candidate mentioned at Serial No.6 - Kavitha, R. Therefore, the
selection made by the first respondent is contrary to the rule of reservation
and roster maintained by them. The petitioner should have been selected and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
appointed to the post fell under S.No.6. Thus for, the non-selection of the
petitioner is found illegal. The Writ Petition stands allowed.
16.This Court, at the time of admission on 29.08.2013, has
directed the respondents to keep one post of Deputy Collector in Group - I
Services vacant, subject to the result of this writ petition. Now that, all the
posts were filled up in the selection held in 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2010-
2011. The petitioner is deprived of his valuable service for the past 15 years.
17.Considering the circumstances, a direction is given to the
respondents to create one supernumerary post in the post of Deputy Collector
or any other post in Group- I Services to the petitioner on notional basis with
effect from the date of appointment given to the candidate mentioned at Serial
No.6 - Kavitha, R., and adjust the same in future vacancies. It is made clear
that the petitioner will not be entitled to any monetary benefits, but will be
entitled to all other attendant benefits. The respondents are further directed to
complete the above said process within a period of three months from the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
of receipt of a copy of this order.
18.The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21 / 01 / 2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
TK
To
1.The Secretary
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission
No.3, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar,
Chennai - 600 003.
2.The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamilnadu
Revenue Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
WP NO.23823 OF 2013
21 / 01 / 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
