Madras High Court
L.Raja vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 June, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.No.34830 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 30.01.2025
Pronounced On 17.06.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.34830 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015 and W.M.P.No.12934 of 2017
L.Raja
...Petitioner
Versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
VOC Nagar, Frazer Bridge Road,
Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent
commission to select and appoint the petitioner to any of the posts included
under the Combined Service Examination – 1 (CSSE-1) notified vide
Advertisement No.258, dated 30.12.2010 in the BC (General) Category.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
W.P.No.34830 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan,
Senior Counsel
for Ms.M.Srividhya
For Respondent – 1 : Mr.Tippusulthan,
Government Advocate
For Respondent – 2 : Ms.G.Hema,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The relief sought in this Writ Petition is to direct the 2nd Respondent
to select and appoint the Petitioner to any of the posts included under the
Combined Service Examination – 1 (CSSE-1) notified vide Advertisement
No.258 dated 30.12.2010 in the BC (General) Category.
2. The 2nd Respondent had issued a Notification dated 30.12.2010 for
direct recruitment to the various posts included in Combined Subordinate
Services Examination – I. The posts mentioned in Table – I of the
Recruitment Notification dated 30.12.2010 are interview posts and the
method of selection for the post is by way of Written Examination & Oral
Test.
3. The posts mentioned in Table – II of the aforesaid Recruitment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
Notification are “Non-Interview posts” and the method of selection for those
posts is by way of Written Examination alone.
4. The Petitioner who had completed B.Sc. (Physics) & MCA,
responded to the aforesaid Recruitment Notification vide Advertisement
No.258 dated 30.12.2010 and applied for one of the Non-Interview posts in
Table – II of the said Recruitment Notification. The Petitioner had appeared
for the written examination on 30.07.2011. The results for the said written
examinations were published on 20.11.2012.
5. The Petitioner had scored 232.50 marks in the aforesaid written
examination and was ranked as 5443. The Petitioner was thereafter called
for Certificate Verification on 30.11.2012 vide Communication dated
26.11.2012. However, it is submitted that the Petitioner was not aware that
he was short listed and called for Certificate Verification since he suffered
from typhoid fever at that point of time.
6. When the Petitioner came to know about the same, he approached
the 2nd Respondent in person on 18.12.2012 and made representations dated
18.12.2012 and 09.01.2013 to the 2nd Respondent requesting to include his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
name in the 4th Phase & 5th Phase of counselling to Non-Interview posts
included in CSSE-I, 2009-2011 and appoint him to any of the Group II Non-
Interview posts included in TNPSC CSSE-I 2011, but, to which, there was
no response from the 2nd Respondent.
7. The specific case of the Petitioner was that though the Petitioner
had scored 232.50 marks in the written examination for the post in Table – II
of the Recruitment Notification, the Petitioner did not know of the results of
written examination published on 20.11.2012 since the Petitioner was living
in a remote village which did not have Internet facility.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of
this Court to an Order dated 27.06.2024 in W.P.Nos.14410, 14411 & 8069
of 2014 in respect of the very same Recruitment Notification dated
30.12.2010.
8.1. It is submitted that in W.P. Nos.14410, 14411 & 8069 of 2014,
this Court had directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission/2nd
Respondent herein to call the Petitioners therein for Certificate Verification,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
select them if they satisfied all the other requirements and appoint them as
Assistants in any one of the Departments enumerated under Clause 19 of the
Recruitment Notification dated 30.12.2010.
8.2. It is also submitted that in Paragraph No.7 of the Order dated
27.06.2024 in W.P. Nos.14410, 14411 & 8069 of 2014, this Court had
captured the mistake committed by the 2nd Respondent. For better
appreciation, Paragraph No.7 of the Order dated 27.06.2024 is reproduced
hereunder:
“7. In the counter filed by the Joint Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission, Chennai, the above stand taken by the petitioners is factually
admitted. In paragraph No.5 of the counter, it is stated as follows:
“5. It is respectfully submitted that this was the first time that
the process of counseling was introduced and due to large
volume of candidates had been summoned for counseling, and
due to absence of some candidates summoned for counseling
and unwillingness expressed by of some candidates during
counseling, the petitioners have been omitted from being taken
which is purely a genuine mistake. Counselling system now in
practice has been modified appropriately and such mistake will
not occur now. The above petitioners as indicated will be
accommodated in the next phase of counseling.””
8.3. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that the person who was selected to the post of Assistant in Police
Department for Backward Class (General) had scored only 231 marks in the
written examination, whereas, the Petitioner who belongs to Backward Class
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
category had scored 232.50 marks in the written examination and therefore,
the Petitioner was entitled to be selected.
8.4. That apart, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner that as per the Recruitment Notification dated 30.12.2010, the
selection for appointment to the Non-Interview posts mentioned in Table –
II was to be made on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates
in the written examination.
8.5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner specifically drew
the attention of this Court to Clause 8 of the Recruitment Notification dated
30.12.2010 which reads as under:
“8. PROCEDURE OF SELECTION:-
The selection of candidates for appointment to the posts mentioned against
Sl.Nos.1 to 16 of the Table-I will be made in two successive stages viz., (i)
Written Examination and (ii) Oral Test in the shape of an interview and the
Final selection will be made on the basis of the total marks obtained by the
candidates at the Written Examination and Oral Test taken together and the post
option exercised by the candidates and following the rule of reservation of
appointments separately for each post and unit. Candidate's appearance in the
Written Examination and for Oral Test is compulsory.
The selection for appointment to the posts mentioned against Sl.No.17 to 37 of
Table-II will be made on the basis of total marks obtained by the candidates in
the Written Examination and the post option exercised by the candidates
following the rule of reservation of appointments separately for each post and
unit.
Two separate Rank Lists will be prepared for Interview posts mentioned against
Sl.No.1 to 16 under Table-I and Non Interview posts (Sl.No.17 to 37) under
Table-II.
The candidates who are to be considered only for non-interview post, will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
summoned for certificate verification after the conduct of oral test.
Selection in respect of Non-Interview posts will be taken up after finalising the
selection for Interview posts mentioned against Sl.No.1 to 16 excluding those
who have been selected for Interview posts.”
8.6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
that mere hosting of the Memorandum and summoning the candidates for 1st
Phase of counselling in the website or publishing the same in the
newspapers is not sufficient for service of notice i.e., summoning for
counselling. Since there was no individual intimation to the Petitioner
regarding the Certificate Verification and counselling, the Petitioner was
unable to attend the same.
9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd
Respondent submitted that the List of candidates admitted provisionally
during 1st Phase of counselling was published in the Tamil Dailies viz., Dina
Thanthi, Dinamani, Dinakaran etc., on 21.11.2012. The 1st Phase of
counseling was conducted from on 22.11.2012 to 01.12.2012.
9.1. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd
Respondent that after the completion of 1st Phase of counselling conducted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
for Non-Interview posts, 5 more counsellings were also conducted. It is
stated that before conducting the said 5 counsellings, individual
communication regarding the date and time of Certificate Verification and
counselling were intimated to the selected candidates separately by the 2nd
Respondent.
9.2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd Respondent also
submitted that though the 2nd Respondent had sent individual
communication to the Petitioner indicating the date and time of Certificate
Verification and counseling, however, it is stated that the Petitioner failed to
respond to the same.
9.3. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd Respondent has
produced a Counselling Schedule for Posts included in CSSE-I 2009-2011,
wherein, particularly, in S.No.4 of the Note, it has been stated as follows:
“4. The candidate who does not appear for counselling on the scheduled
date will lose his/her seniority in the combined merit list, consequential
allotment and they will not be given any further chance to appear for the same.”
9.4. That apart, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd Respondent
drew the attention to Paragraph Nos.14.1 & 15 of the Judgement dated
08.11.2023 in W.A. No. 93 of 2023 passed by the Division Bench of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
Court, wherein, it has been observed as follows:
“14.1. A perusal of the above letter dated 07.11.2013 would not reveal
any circumstances much less extraordinary circumstances to exist, which
prevented the 1st Respondent from attending the counselling. Therefore, we see
no reason to find fault with the rejection of the 1st Respondent's candidature for
appointment.
15. Secondly, the order of rejection dated 26.12.2013 has been
challenged by the 1st Respondent after almost 4 years from the date of the
impugned order and the said laches remain unexplained. Moreso, we are
informed that the posts have been filled, thereby, resulting in creation of 3rd
party right, which would now be disturbed in the event of any interference by this
Court, which is yet another reason to exercise restraint. In this regard, it may be
useful to refer to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3
SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC
174 at page 237
“38. It is not in dispute that for filling up the post of
112 vacancies about 6000 candidates applied. Processing of
their applications and holding of written examination, viva voce
examination and physical ability test took a long time. At the
first stage of the recruitment process, 57 posts more than the
advertised 112 posts were filled up.
39. The appellant did not question the legality and/or
validity thereof. He should have done the same at the earliest
possible opportunity. Having regard to the emergent situation,
in regard whereto we have taken note of earlier, proposal was
made to increase the number of vacancies from time to time.”
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) Meena Sharma v. State of J&K, (2020) 15 SCC 648
: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1580 at page 653
“The four-year delay on the part of the fifth respondent in
contesting the appointment of the appellant disentitled her to
claim any relief.”
(iii) Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25 :
(2022) 1 SCC (Civ) 711 : (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 328 : 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 895 at page 38
“22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of
the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As
stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of the
party approaching the court apart from the change in position
in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a
Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its
doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By
his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position,
and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his
conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a
remedy.””
Therefore, it is submitted that in the light of the above Judgment, this writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. By way of rejoinder, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that it is the case of the Respondent that individual
communication was sent to selected candidates.
11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2 nd
Respondent submitted that in Paragraph No.7 of the Counter Affidavit filed
by the 2nd Respondent, it has been clearly stated that the list of candidates
admitted provisionally for 1st Phase of counselling was posted in the 2nd
Respondent's website on 20.11.2012 and the Petitioner had been summoned
for counselling on 30.11.2012, but, he was absent.
12. In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner drew the
attention of this Court to Paragraph No.18 of the Affidavit filed in support of
this writ petition, wherein, it has been clearly stated that even in the instant
case in the previous selection which was held on 05.02.2014, the 2nd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
Respondent/Commissioner never published the category of the candidates
who were selected and thus, leaving the candidates like the Petitioner in the
dark.
13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
14. There is no dispute that the Petitioner had participated in the
competitive examination for a Non-Interview posts pursuant to the
Recruitment Notification dated 30.12.2010. On 20.11.2012, the list of
candidates selected for the Non-Interview posts was released, which
included the name of the Petitioner. Those candidates who were selected for
the Non-Interview posts were called for counselling vide Communication
dated 26.11.2012.
15. However, the Petitioner failed to attend the Certificate
Verification on the allotted date viz., 30.11.2012. Thereafter, the Petitioner
has sent Representations on various dated viz., on 18.12.2012, 09.01.2013,
05.02.2014 and 02.07.2014 to the 2nd Respondent to consider the Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
for counselling for the Non-Interview posts.
16. The fact remains that the Petitioner had approached the 2nd
Respondent on 18.12.2012 in person immediately after the date for
Certificate Verification expired on 30.11.2012 / 01.12.2012 and had given a
written representation to the 2nd Respondent on the very same date i.e.,
18.12.2012. Thereafter, as stated above, the Petitioner gave a Representation
dated 09.01.2013 to the 2nd Respondent, but, the same has not been
considered.
17. Further, the fact remains that the results of the written
examination for the Non-Interview posts were published only in the
Newspaper and date of counselling for the selected candidates vide
Communication dated 26.11.2012 indicating that the selected candidates
should come for Certificate Verification was not received by the Petitioner.
18. In any event, the Petitioner has approached the 2nd Respondent
immediately on 18.12.2012 when the Petitioner came to know that the date
for Certificate Verification by the Respondent for the Non-Interview posts
has expired on 30.11.2012 / 01.12.2012. Thus, it is evident that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
Petitioner has been diligent.
19. The fact also remains that the Petitioner has secured 232.50
marks in the written examination and was ranked as 5443 for the Non-
Interview posts, whereas, the persons with lower mark and rank under the
same category viz., BC (General) was selected to the post of Assistant in the
Police Department by the Respondents.
20. The only difficulty at this instant point of time is the lapse of 10
years since filing of this Writ Petition for the above relief. The Petitioner
was aged about only 37 years at the time when this Writ Petition was filed
and will about 47 years now, when this Order is being passed. He has no
scope for employment in Public Service as he would be barred by age.
21. While dealing with a case pertaining to the same Recruitment
Notification dated 30.12.2010, this Court has came to the rescue of the
candidate in W.P.Nos.14410, 14411 & 8069 of 2014 vide Order dated
27.06.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
22. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, every citizen is
entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.
23. There has been a manifest violation of the rights of the Petitioner
since the Petitioner was not effectively communicated of his selection to the
Non-Interview posts and the date of Certificate Verification for the said post
by the Respondent. Therefore, the relief sought for by the Petitioner in this
Writ Petition can be granted.
24. Although more than 10 years have lapsed since filing of this Writ
Petition and 13 years have lapsed since the recruitment proceedings were
completed for the Non-Interview posts in the Recruitment Notification dated
30.12.2010, for the marks obtained by the Petitioner, the Petitioner deserves
appointment as an Assistant in any of the Department under Part III of the
Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules.
25. Therefore, the Respondents are directed to create a
supernumerary post and issue an Appointment Letter to the Petitioner within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
ascertaining whether the Petitioner is still interested in seeking employment.
It is made clear that the appointment of the Petitioner is to be only
prospective with no retrospective monetary benefit or any other attendant
benefits of the Petitioner.
26. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observation.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
17.06.2025
mrr
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
2.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Frazer Bridge Road,
Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mrr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/06/2025 01:20:59 pm )
