Madras High Court
The Member Secretary vs A.Pavunkumar on 12 September, 2023
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal Nos. 1358, 1359 & 1361 of 2022
and 614 to 616 of 2023
and
C.M.P. Nos. 8700,8702, 8669 & 8691 of 2022
6034, 6036, 6037, 6038 & 6039 of 2023
---
W.A.Nos.1358, 1359 and 1361 of 2022
The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
(TNUSRB)
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus
Pantheon Road, Egmore
Chennai – 600 008 .. Appellant
Versus
1.A.Pavunkumar
2.P.Chandrasekar
3.P.Manojkumar
4.P.Ananthan
5.The Director General of Police
Tamil Nadu
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
W.A.Nos.614 to 616 of 2023
The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus
Egmore, Chennai 600 008. .. Appellant in
all the writ appeals
Versus
1.B.Akkim ...1st Respondent in
WA.No.614/2023
S.M.Prabhu ...1st Respondent in
WA.No.615/2023
S.Athiyaman ...1st Respondent in
WA.No.616/2023
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
Home Department
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
O/o.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ... 2nd and 3rd
Respondents
W.A.Nos.1358, 1359 and 1361 of 2022: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent against the common order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the
learned Judge in W.P. Nos.9834 of 2020, 10467 of 2021 and 14538 of 2020
respectively.
W.A.Nos.614 to 616 of 2023: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent against the common order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the learned
Judge in W.P. Nos.12833, 12835 and 4852 of 2021, respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
For Appellant : Mr. P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.J.Lenin
For Respondents : Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan for R1 to R4
in W.A.Nos.1358, 1359 & 1361 of 2022
Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Advocate
for Mr.Sarath Chandran (R1)
in W.A.Nos.614 to 616 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgement of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.]
The appellant in all these appeals, is the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board, Chennai. They have come up with these two sets of writ
appeals against the identical orders dated 07.01.2022 passed by the learned
Judge in the writ petitions filed by the respondents 1 to 4 in WA Nos.1358,
1359 and 1361 of 2022 and the first respondent in WA Nos.614 to 616 of
2023.
WRIT PROCEEDINGS
2. The respondents / writ petitioners preferred the writ petitions viz.,
WP Nos.9834/2020, 10467 of 2021, 14538 of 2020, 12833 of 2021, 12835 of
2021 and 4852 of 2021, stating that they were entitled to be called for next
stage of selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant to
Recruitment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Notification No.2/TNUSRB/2019 dated 08.03.2019 by
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
application of the Tamil Nadu Appointment on preferential basis in the
services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 (“the
PSTM Act”, in short).
3. The respondents 1 to 4 in the first set of writ appeals, namely
A.Pavunkumar, P.Chandrasekar, P.Manojkumar, and P.Ananthan jointly filed
the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.9834 of 2020, 10467 of 2021 and 14538 of 2020
on the ground that the appellant Board has not adhered to Clause 15(vi) of the
Recruitment Notification issued in the year 2019, which stipulates the stages
of examination for open candidates.
4. The first respondent(s) in WA Nos.614 and 615 of 2023 viz.,
B.Akkim and S.Prabhu had earlier filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7643 and
7620 of 2021 respectively, seeking a direction to the concerned officials to
treat their candidature under the PSTM Act by considering their
representations dated 16.03.2021 and 10.03.2021. By separate orders dated
24.03.2021 and 25.03.2021, the learned Judge disposed of the said writ
petitions, by directing the authorities to consider their representations, after
affording an opportunity of personal hearing and written submission of the
writ petitioners. Pursuant to the same, the authorities rejected the claim of the
writ petitioners, by separate orders dated 31.05.2021, which were challenged
in W.P.Nos.12833 and 12835 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
5. As far as the first respondent in WA.No.616 of 2023 by name
S.Athiyaman is concerned, he filed W.P.No.4852 of 2021, in which, an interim
order was granted on 12.05.2021, by directing the Board to reserve one post
vacant, and if at all he is not eligible, the same may be directed to be vacated.
Despite the said order, he was not called for the interview.
6. Further, the respondents / writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ
petitions based on the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by a Division Bench of
this court in W.P.(MD).Nos.19112, 19121, 19123 and 18668 of 2020 filed by
the similarly placed candidates viz., one M.Vigneshwaran and others against
the State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Chennai and others, challenging the very same notification dated 08.03.2019
issued by the appellant Board. In the said order, it was categorically held that
the manner in which the PSTM reservation was applied by the appellant Board
was against the provisions of the PSTM Act and holding so, the petitioners
therein were permitted to participate in the next stage of recruitment process.
ORDERS PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITIONS
7. Upon hearing the counsel for both sides, the learned Judge
allowed the writ petitions by two separate orders dated 07.01.2022, the
relevant portions of which, are extracted below for ready reference:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
WP.Nos.12833, 12835 & 4852 of 2021
“107. I am therefore inclined to quash the impugned orders dated
31.05.2021 in W.P.Nos.12833 and 12835 of 2021 and remit the case back to
the second respondent allow the petitioners to be appeared for next round of
selection. If they are found qualified, the respondents shall create
supernumerary post and absorb them. This exercise shall be completed
within a period 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this this Order.
108. As far as W.P.No.4852 of 2021 is concerned, it is not clear
whether such exercise was carried pursuant to interim order of this Court.
After comparing the total score of each of the candidates against the
respective category provisional selection shall be made by applying the
method in para 59 of the Saurav Yadav and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Others (2021) 4 SCC 542.
109. In case, these petitioners are found eligible to be selected under
the PSTM Quota under PSTM Act, 2010, the respondents shall create
supernumerary posts on accommodate of these petitioners also and absorb
them into regular services without disturbing appointments already made.
110. The respondents shall complete the exercise within a period of
45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
W.P.Nos.10467 of 2021 and 14538 & 9834 of 2020
“18. The respondents are bound to follow the procedure and cannot
unfairly exclude the petitioners contrary to the requirements of the above
Recruitment Notification.
19. Therefore, I am inclined to allow these Writ Petitions by directing
the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the next round of
selection and thereafter apply the test procedure prescribed / recognized in
Saurav Yadv case referred to supra. This exercise shall be carried out by the
respondents within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order along with the petitioners in W.P.Nos.12833, 12835 &
4852 of 2021.
20. If the petitioners are entitled to be selected, following the
procedure in Clause 15(vi) of the Recruitment Notification and test in Saurav
Yadv case referred to supra the respondents shall absorb these petitioners
into service by creating supernumerary posts and regularize their
appointment. Entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondents within
one eighty (180) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
21. These Writ Petitions are allowed. No cost. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
8. The aforesaid orders dated 07.01.2022, are challenged in the
present writ appeals, at the instance of the appellant Board.
9. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant Board submitted that the benefits of the order dated 10.02.2021
passed in W.P.(MD).No.19112 of 2020 etc. batch were extended only to the
petitioners therein and not to any other candidates. The appellant Board has
also complied with the said order and undertook the exercise of allowing the
petitioners therein alone, as the recruitment process was still going on, while
the said relief to others was denied. Adding further, the learned Additional
Advocate General submitted that the appellant Board during the hearing of the
said writ petitions, committed to implement 20% reservation to PSTM
candidates in future recruitment at every stage and accordingly, they issued
subsequent Notification bearing No.1 of 2022 mentioning that PSTM
preference is available at every stage of selection.
9.1. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the
writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.3307 of 2021, 6093 of 2020 and 6014 of 2021
challenging the very same notification dated 08.03.2019, were dismissed, vide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
orders dated 19.02.2021, 03.03.2021 and 17.03.2021 respectively, by
observing that the petitioners therein may not be in a position to claim the
benefits as granted in the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in WP(MD)No.19112
of 2020 etc. batch, since the said order restricts the relief only to the
petitioners therein.
9.2. It is further submitted that following the order dated 10.02.2021
passed in WP (MD) No.19112 of 2020 etc, batch, WA (MD) No.457 of 2021
filed by similarly placed candidate by name Pravin Kumar, came to be allowed
vide judgment dated 27.07.2021, against which, the appellant Board preferred
an appeal in SLP (Civil) No.21029/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9.3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant also submitted that the appellant Board has completed the entire
recruitment process and published the provisional selection list on 15.04.2021
for the notified vacancies and that, the training for the selected candidates has
also started on 01.09.2021. Therefore, allowing the respondent candidates to
undergo further selection process, would not only lead to endless litigation,
but also open a floodgate to the similarly disqualified candidates to approach
this Court for the similar relief, which would in turn, affect the selected
candidates at large.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
9.4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellant further submitted that the respondents / writ petitioners had
approached this Court belatedly and were fence sitters. They having allowed
the issue to get lapsed due to efflux of time and in view of the completion of
the recruitment process, the relief cannot be granted to them. Without
considering all these aspects, the learned Judge erred in allowing the writ
petitions filed by the respondents / writ petitioners. Therefore, the learned
Additional Advocate General prayed this Court to allow these writ appeals by
setting aside the orders passed by the learned Judge.
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents / writ
petitioners at the outset, jointly, submitted that the impugned orders do not
require any interference by this Court as the learned Judge, after proper
consideration of the facts and circumstances, had allowed the writ petitions.
They further reiterated that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
respondent candidates and hence, these writ appeals preferred by the appellant
Board will have to be dismissed.
10.1. It is further submitted on the side of the respondents / writ
petitioners that if the preferential reservation was applied at each stage of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
selection, the writ petitioners would have been called for next stage of
selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, but they have been denied
such opportunity. In this regard, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent candidates in WA.Nos.614 to 616 of 2023 referred to the
observation made by the learned Judge in the impugned orders that if the
procedure adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav and Others
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2021) 4 SCC 542] was followed, the
respondents / writ petitioners may have stood a chance for being appointed on
preferential basis and that, the cumulative marks obtained upto the final stage
of test is relevant for provisionally short-listing and selecting the candidates
under 20% preferential quota under the PSTM Act.
10.2. It is also submitted on the side of the respondents / writ
petitioners, separate cut-off marks will have to be prescribed for the persons,
who studied in Tamil Medium at each stage of selection, which was not done
by the appellant Board. Taking note of the same, the learned Judge observed
that the respondents / writ petitioners cannot be found fault with that and the
appellant Board as a recruiting body, is required to follow the law as laid down
by the Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
10.3. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents / writ petitioners
in WA.Nos.1358, 1359 and 1361 of 2022 submitted that though this Court in
W.P.(MD).No.19112 of 2020 etc., batch has found fault with the method
adopted by the appellant Board while applying the provisions of the PSTM
Act, yet, it has given protection only to few persons, who had filed the said
writ petitions. Such course adopted is not a correct position of law in the light
of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others
v. C. Lalitha [(2006) 2 SCC 747], wherein it was pointed out that all similarly
situated persons should be treated similarly irrespective of the fact that only
one person who had approached the Court. It is also submitted that the order
passed in W.P.(MD).No.19112 of 2020 etc., batch dated 10.02.2021, was also
followed by another Division Bench in W.A.(MD).No.457 of 2021 vide
judgment dated 27.07.2021.
With these submissions, the learned senior counsel prayed for dismissal of
these appeals filed by the appellant Board.
11. Heard the learned senior counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record, carefully and meticulously.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
12. Before the writ court, the respondents / writ petitioners sought a
direction to the appellant Board to permit them to participate in the next stage
of recruitment process to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, by applying 20%
reservation at each stage under PSTM category. They claimed such relief, on
the strength of the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by this court in
W.P.(MD).No.19112 of 2020 etc. batch, the relevant passage of which, reads as
follows:
“9. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners, unfortunately, the object and rationale behind the enactment
has not been brought to the notice of the Court. The enactment, in its
specified terms, justifies the classification sought to be made. This is, by
taking note of the inequality, which is inherent in treating a candidate coming
within the same communal roster having studied in English medium and
Tamil medium. Therefore, there is no violation to Article 16 of the
Constitution of India, nor the reservation policy of the State qua vertical
reservation. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the Act by itself clearly thinks
of a valid reservation, despite being a horizontal one.
10. Section 2 of the Act defines a preferential vacancy. These
vacancies would only mean such vacancies available for Persons Studied in
Tamil Medium. Therefore, these vacancies ought to be filled up through
Direct Recruitment only with the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium alone.
The mere fact that such persons are entitled to compete for the vacancies
other than the preferential vacancies would not make them to the extent of
considering them along with the others, for the vacancies specifically
earmarked for them. As per Section 6 of the Act, the others are entitled for
such vacancies earmarked for the PSTM candidates only when they are
unfilled. Therefore, Sections 2, 3(1), 5 & 6 of the Act are to be read in
consonance. In this connection, we may note that Section 5 of the Act clearly
states that reservation has to be made as per the law in force.
11. As stated, these provisions are not only in consonance with each
other, but with respect to the roster point fixed. The State of Tamil Nadu has
got its own unique roster point system. This is with respect to both horizontal
and vertical reservation. In every reserved category coming under vertical
reservation, there is a horizontal reservation such as Widow, Disabled and
PSTM. These are all the disadvantaged class of persons forming a distinct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
category among the vertically reserved categories. The roster point has been
fixed in the vertical category to be filled with such horizontal category
candidates. As stated, this aspect has not been brought to the notice of the
Hon'ble Division Bench in the earlier cases. Even otherwise, the law laid
down by the Division Bench, though relied upon by the respondents, is not
even being followed.
12. In fact, the respondents are actually following the rule of
reservation, but at the final stage. In other words, there is no question of two
identical persons being considered and the one with PSTM being preferred
among the vertically reserved candidates. That has never been done even in
this case. Now what the respondents are doing is that, they take the finally
selected candidates in each category and then trying to fix 20% for PSTM.
Therefore, even the respondents have understood the object of the Act, but the
mistake lies in its implementation. If 20% of the vacancies will have to be
filled up, as per the roster point and in accordance with law, the starting
point would be at the initial selection, namely, the written examination. When
once the Act itself says that these persons cannot be treated on par and
categorized along with the other candidates, who can be considered as per
the vertical reservation, this approach of the respondents is obviously against
the very Act itself.
13. The aforesaid observation, we give, as in future, no such
anomalies should occur and as rightly being followed by the other
instrumentalities of the State, namely, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission and Teachers Recruitment Board, and in view of the fair
submissions made by the learned Advocate General and the learned
Additional Advocate General.
14. The incidental question is with respect to the relief to be given. We
are in respect and agreement with the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners that there is no question of estoppel, as there is a fundamental
error in following the law and therefore, a mere notification cannot be put
against the Act. However, we are not dealing with a public interest litigation.
Now, much water has flown under the bridge. We are at the final stage of
viva-voce, which is actually going on. Therefore, the relief cannot be
extended to all others. The learned Advocate General and the learned
Additional Advocate General fairly submitted that the petitioners' case can
be considered, provided they come within the cutoff marks, if they are treated
as a separate category at every stage by following 20% reservation of PSTM
category. Therefore, they may not be treated on par with the other
candidates, who would otherwise come under the reserved category or open
category, as the case may be.
15. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to undertake
such exercise, insofar as the petitioners before us alone are concerned and if
they are otherwise eligible, by following the roster point for PSTM category
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
within the other general category or reserved category, as the case maybe,
they should be considered for the next stage of the recruitment process. After
undertaking the said exercise, if the petitioners are entitled to, they should be
given the appointments accordingly.
16. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. We place on
record our appreciation for the fair submission made by the learned Counsel
before us. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
After detailed analysis of the PSTM Act and the case of the respondent
candidates and also following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
learned Judge allowed all the writ petitions and directed the appellant Board to
allow the respondents / writ petitioners to participate in the next round of
selection and create supernumerary posts to accommodate the respondents /
writ petitioners, if they are found eligible to be selected under the PSTM quota
under the PSTM Act and also absorb them into regular services without
disturbing appointments already made, by the orders impugned herein.
Therefore, the appellant Board is before this court with the present appeals.
13. The main contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellant Board, assailing the orders passed by the writ
court, are as follows:
(i)The benefits of the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in
W.P.(MD).No.19112 of 2020 etc. batch were extended only to the petitioners
therein and hence, the same cannot be applicable to any other similarly placed
candidates.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
(ii)The appellant Board had completed the entire recruitment process to
the post of Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to the notification dated
08.03.2019 and published the provisional selection list on 15.04.2021 for the
notified vacancies and that, the training for the selected candidates had started
from 01.09.2021. Therefore, the relief sought by the respondents / writ
petitioners cannot be feasible for consideration. It is also submitted that the
respondent candidates were fence-sitters and they approached the court
belatedly.
(iii)The cases filed by similarly placed persons on the basis of the order
dated 10.02.2021 made in WP (MD) No.19112 of 2020 etc, batch, were
dismissed by this court, on the ground that the benefit granted in the said order
was restricted to the petitioners therein. The judgment dated 27.07.2021
passed in W.A.(MD).No.457 of 2021 allowing the claim of the writ petitioner
therein, following the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in W.P.(MD)No.19112 of
2020 etc. batch, was challenged by the appellant Board, by filing SLP (Civil)
No.21029/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents / writ petitioners submitted that the respondents / writ petitioners
were not awarded separate cut off marks as per the roster points fixed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
PSTM category at each stage of selection and that, the entire selection exercise
was not properly done by the appellant Board. Taking note of the same, the
learned Judge correctly allowed the writ petitions by the orders impugned
herein, which do not call for any interference in the hands of this Court.
15. Admittedly, the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in WP (MD)
No.19112 of 2020 etc. batch, was not challenged and the direction issued
therein was also complied with by the appellant Board. That apart, having
pointed out that the PSTM Act was enacted with twin object of promoting
Tamil language and to give priority in employment on preferential basis to
PSTM candidates, the ruling laid down in the said order that the starting point
for applying the PSTM reservation would be at the initial selection and not at
the final stage, was accepted by the appellant Board and an undertaking was
also given by them at the time of disposal of the writ petitions that they would
implement 20% reservation for PSTM category at every stage in future
recruitment and accordingly, they issued the subsequent notification no.1/2022
stating that PSTM preference is available at every stage of selection. It is also
crystal clear from the said order that the appellant Board did not follow proper
selection process to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, pursuant to the
notification issued on 08.03.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
16. Undoubtedly, the respondents / writ petitioners are similarly
placed persons as that of the petitioners in WP (MD) No.19112 of 2020 etc,
batch. It is true that the benefits of the order dated 10.02.2021 passed in
W.P.(MD).No.19112 of 2020 etc. batch were extended only to the petitioners
therein and not to any other candidates. In the present case, the writ petitioners
/ respondents herein approached the court before filing of the writ petition in
WP (MD) No.19112 of 2020 etc. batch., and they also obtained an interim
order to keep one post vacant in the writ petitions and thus, there was no delay
or laches on their part in seeking such relief. In such circumstances, the
restriction made in the order passed in WP(MD)No.19112 of 2020 etc. cannot
be applicable to the respondents / writ petitioners, as it was held by the
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha, (cited supra),
that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly, irrespective of
the fact that only one person had approached the Court.
17. With respect to the contention that the appellant Board had
completed the entire recruitment process and had published the provisional
selection list on 15.04.2021 for the notified vacancies and hence, the claim of
the respondents / writ petitioners is not feasible for consideration, the same
cannot be countenanced by this Court, as it is an admitted fact that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
appellant Board did not conduct the selection process in proper mode as per
law and that, there was no delay or laches on the part of the respondents / writ
petitioners in approaching this court. When the respondents / writ petitioners
have obtained qualifying marks on merit to be included in the list of selected
candidates for participating in the next stage, they have been deprived of such
opportunity, in view of the improper method of selection adopted by the
appellant Board. Consequently, they would have to undergo another selection
process afresh right from the beginning. Due to no fault on part of the
respondents / writ petitioners, they cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, this
court is of the opinion that the learned Judge is justified in directing the
appellant Board to permit the respondents / writ petitioners to participate in the
next selection process and thereafter, create supernumerary posts by following
due procedure, for the purpose of accommodating the respondents / writ
petitioners, if they are found eligible to be selected under the PSTM quota and
also absorb them into regular services without disturbing the appointments
already made.
18. It is also to be pointed out that SLP (Civil) No.21029/2021 filed
by the appellant Board before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment
dated 27.07.2021 passed in W.A.(MD)No.457 of 2021, came to be dismissed,
by order dated 26.07.2022, with the following observation:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
“No doubt that there is substance in the submission made by
Mr.Hegde, learned senior counsel that when another Division Bench vide
order dated 10.02.2021 had made observations that the relief granted therein
is restricted only to the petitioners therein, the same observation should have
been given due consideration by another Division Bench.
However, we find that the Division Bench vide order dated 27.07.2021
had considered all the aspects and found that even if the petitioners in the
said petition was granted the relief being sought, there would be no
disturbance in the selection process and even otherwise, the respondent-writ
petitioner was found to be meritorious.
As such in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not
find that this is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.”
Further, the cases filed by similarly placed persons referring to the order dated
10.02.2021 passed in WP (MD) No.19112 of 2020 etc, batch, were dismissed,
only on the ground that the selection process was completed by the appellant
Board, which is not accepted by this court for the reasons stated in the earlier
paragraph of this judgment.
19. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the orders passed by the learned Judge in the writ petitions.
Accordingly, the writ appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
12.09.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA No.1358 of 2022 etc batch
R.MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
rk
To
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home Department
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
O/o.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
WA Nos.1358, 1359 & 1361 of 2022
and 614 to 616 of 2023
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
