Madras High Court

S.Siddarth vs State Represented By on 16 July, 2025

                                                                                                 WP No. 16777 of 2025


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 16-07-2025

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                              WP No. 16777 of 2025
                                                     AND
                                          WMP NOS.19019 & 19018 OF 2025
                1. S.Siddarth
                S/o G. Sithiresan,
                No.45/25w, Nandha Gopalan Kovil
                South Street, Cumbum,
                Theni District - 625 516.

                2.Annamalai D
                Son Of Dharuman,
                No.1682(1), MGR Nagar,
                Mangalam Pudur,
                Tiruvannamalai 606 752.

                3.Dr. Amirthaselvarajan.D
                Son Of Dhevanandh,
                78A, Kariyangudi Chetty Street,
                Velippalayam,
                Nagappattinam - 611 001.
                                                                                        Petitioner(s)
                                                               Vs
                1. State Represented by
                The Secretary To Government,
                Health And Family Welfare



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )
                                                                                                   WP No. 16777 of 2025


                Department,
                Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

                2.The Medical Service Recruitment
                Board
                Represented By Its Member Secretary,
                DMS Building, Teynampet,
                Chennai - 600 106.

                3.The Director
                Indian Medicine And Homoeopathy,
                Chennai 600 106.

                                                                                            Respondent(s)
                PRAYER
                    Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying

                to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to Corrigendum
                                       nd
                issued by the 2             respondent dated 15.04.2025, modifying of the detailed

                Notification No. 09/MRB/2020, Dated 14.08.2020 and 26.10.2021, the Revised

                Distribution of Vacancies for the post of Assistant Medical Officer / Lecturer

                Grade - II (Yoga and Naturopathy) and quash the same.


                                  For Petitioner(s):        Mr.P.Raja
                                                            P. Kumanan
                                                            M. Mathankumar

                                  For Respondent(s):        Mr.Tippu Sultan
                                                            G.A For R1, R3
                                                            M/s.L.Murugavelu, SC For R2
                                                                 ******



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )
                                                                                            WP No. 16777 of 2025


                                                           ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to

Corrigendum issued by the 2nd respondent dated 15.04.2025, modifying of the

detailed Notification No.09/MRB/2020, Dated 14.08.2020 and 26.10.2021, the

Revised Distribution of Vacancies for the post of Assistant Medical Officer /

Lecturer Grade - II (Yoga and Naturopathy) and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr.P.Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.E.Sundaram,

learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 3 and

Mr.L.Murugavelu, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners have completed BNYS course in May 2021, and they have

completed their internship in June 2023 and thereby, they are eligible for the

post of Assistant Medical Officer / Lecturer Grade - II (Yoga and Naturopathy).

It is the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued Notification

on 14.08.2020 to fill up three vacancies in the post of Assistant Medical Officer/

Lecturer Grade - II (Yoga and Naturopathy). Again the 2nd respondent issued

another Notification on 26.10.2021 increasing the vacancy position from 3 to

35. According to the Notification, the eligibility criteria is, apart from getting

Diploma in Naturopathy, the candidates must also registered their name in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )

Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine. Though the petitioners secured

Diploma, they could not apply for the post, as they could not register their

names before the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, which could only be

done after completing the internship. Therefore, it is their contention that

immediately after their registration before the Board, they became eligible since

2022. While waiting for the next call for, all of a sudden, the 2nd respondent has

issued a Corrigendum on 15.04.2025 increasing the posts from 35 to 54 that too

after finalising the selection process, which according to the petitioners would

directly affect the petitioners and similarly placed persons. Hence, prayed to

interfere with the impugned Corrigendum. In support of his contention, the

learned counsel relied upon the following judgements:-

1. The judgment of Kerala High Court in WA.No.275 of 2022 [Bindu B.Kumar and another Vs. Guruvayur Devaswom and others];

2. Rakhi Ray and Others Vs. High Court of Delhi and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 637.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2

respondent would vehemently contend that initially for the post of Assistant

Medical Officer Grade II, 3 posts were notified. However, due to Covid

Pandemic, the Examination could not be conducted and again the vacancy was

revised to 35 vide Notification dated 26.10.2021. The learned Standing Counsel

would further submit that as per the earlier Notification dated 14.08.2020, there

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )

were 425 applications, and subsequently, through their second Notification

dated 26.10.2021, they received another 612 applications. Thus, in total, for

notified vacancy of 35, there were 1037 applications. It is their specific

contention that the Notification itself has a clause for increasing the post and

that the vacancy referred to is only indicative in nature. The learned counsel

would further submit that in 2025 the vacancy increased from 35 to 54, hence,

they issued the impugned Corrigendum on 15.04.2025 to increase the vacancies.

It is the specific submission of the learned Standing Counsel that in view of the

clause contained in the Notification itself giving power to the 2nd respondent to

increase the vacancy position, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against

the Corrigendum, and such position was approved by the learned Single Judge

of this Court in WP.(MD).No.13171 of 2017 [Dr.Sagaya Panimalar Vs. The

State of Tamil Nadu]. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. Now the short point to be considered in the present writ petition is, Can

the Recruiting Agency increase the number of vacancies, after finalising the

selection process?

7. Before we delve into the legal aspects, it is appropriate to extract the

admitted positions.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )

a) On 14.08.2020, 3 vacancies were notified and last date for submission of applications fixed on 10.09.2020 and the date of examination was tentatively fixed on 3rd week of September, 2020.

b) Due to Covid-19 Pandemic related lock down and on administrative reasons, no examination was conducted as mentioned in the above referred first Notification.

rd nd

c) In the meanwhile, the 3 respondent has issued 2 Notification on 26.10.2021 for the increased vacancy of 35, having last date of application on 10.11.2020, and tentative exam date is November, 2021.

8. It appears that based on the second Notification, the examination was

conducted on 23.03.2025 and subsequently, the results were also published.

After the publication of results, the impugned Notification dated 15.04.2025

was issued increasing the vacancy from 35 to 54.

9. Now, let us analyse the legal aspects. The main contention put forth by nd the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, if the 2 respondent is allowed to

increase the vacancy position after selection process is over, it would offend the

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the persons qualified as per

the impugned Notification were not allowed to participate in the examination.

In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench decision of Kerala

High Court in WA.No.275 of 2022 [cited supra]. The Full Bench have

considered the similar aspects to its length and breadth and ultimately in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )

paragraph 23 observed as follows:-

“23. Now what remains is the question as to the circumstances under which vacancies over the notified vacancies could be filled up. The Apex Court in Rakhi Ray (supra) had after holding that such filling up is neither permissible nor desirable, went on to state that such exercise can be carried out only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situations that too after adopting a policy decision based on some rationale. The same view was taken in Prem Sing (supra) as well. It would be relevant to note that though such an observation was made in Rakhi Ray (supra), while deciding the issue it was held that appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised is without jurisdiction and is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, and is a nullity and cannot be enforceable under law. The Division Bench in the reference order has spelled out certain circumstances under which such deviations can be allowed. We are of the view that deviation from the rule that vacancies cannot be filled beyond the number advertised is only permissible under rare and exceptional circumstances or in emergent situations. Such deviations are allowed only when a policy decision is taken based on a sound rationale.” [Emphasis supplied by this Court]

According to the above ratio, the filling up the vacancy over and above the

notified vacancies, is neither permissible nor desirable, and the same can be

done only in rare and exceptional circumstances and must be based upon the

policy decision.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )

10. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel relied upon the

judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(MD).No.13171 of

2017 [cited supra], wherein the learned Single Judge in paragraph 21 has held

that in an emergent situation and in exceptional circumstances, over and above

the notified vacancies can be filled up. While looking at the facts of the case,

the Government justified before the Court that, there are exceptional

circumstances for such appointment on account of the sudden outbreak of

dengue fever in the State. Further, the National Human Rights Commission also

suo motu took the plight of patients suffering due to the shortage of Doctors in

the Government Hospital. It is in this background, the learned Single Judge,

after satisfying with the above exceptional circumstances, by referring to the

clause in the Notification that the Recruiting Authority can vary the vacancy

accepted the excess appointment over and above the notified vacancies.

11. But, in the case in hand, while harmoniously reading the counter

statement, this Court absolutely does not find any exceptional circumstances, so

as to justify the increasing of the vacancy from 35 to 54, that too after

completing the selection process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakhi Ray's

case [cited supra], has categorically declared that only in a rare and exceptional

circumstances, filling up of excess posts more than the notifying vacancies

could be allowed. Here, this Court does not find any iota of material for such an

exceptional circumstances. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners were

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )

not qualified as per the second Notification. However, before the impugned

Corrigendum, the petitioners become qualified and eligible to apply. Apart from

the petitioners, definitely there may be many other similarly situated persons.

When such large number of candidates are longing for public employment and

wait for a fresh Notification, in the absence of any rare and exceptional

circumstances, if the respondents are allowed to fill up the increased vacancies,

that too after the completion of selection process, then the same would affect the

subsequently qualified candidates.

12. In this connection, this Court would like to refer the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hoshiar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others

reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 377. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 and

the same reads as under:-

“10. The learned counsel for these appellants have not been able to show that after the revised requisition dated January 24, 1991 whereby the Board was requested to send its recommendation for 8 posts, any further requisition was sent by the Director General of Police for a larger number of posts. Since the requisition was for eight posts of Inspector of Police, the Board was required to send its recommendations for eight posts only. The Board, on its own, could not recommend names of 19 persons for appointment even though the requisition was for eight posts only because the selection and recommendation of larger number of persons than the posts for which requisition is sent. The appointment on the additional posts on the basis of such selection and recommendation would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment to the posts on the last date for submission of applications mentioned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )

in the advertisement and who became eligible for appointment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for appointment on the additional posts because if the said additional posts are advertised subsequently those who become eligible for appointment would be entitled to apply for the same. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the selection of 19 persons by the Board even though the requisition was for 8 posts only, was not legally sustainable.” [Emphasis supplied by this Court]

13. Thus, in view of the above detailed discussion, this Court is of the

indubitable view that the Corrigendum dated 15.04.2025 increasing the

vacancies to 54 is offending under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India,

hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

14. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order

dated 15.04.2025 is hereby quashed. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent is

at liberty to fill up the 35 vacancies, as notified in their Notification dated

26.10.2021. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

WMPs are also closed.

16-07-2025 (2/2) kmi Index:Yes Speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 02:08:20 pm )

1.The Secretary To Government, Health And Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.