W.P. No. 30271 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008. Case: C. Kumaresan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, Law Department, The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and The Controller of Examinations. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 30271 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Hema Sampath, SC for R. Meenal, Adv. and For Respondents: N. Senthilkumar, AGP and C.N.G. Ezhilarasi, Adv. |
| Judges | K. Chandru, J. |
| Issue | Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 309 |
| Judgement Date | June 08, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
K. Chandru, J.
1. The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the memorandum issued by the second respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short TNPSC), dated 29.09.2008 and after setting aside the same, seeks for inclusion of his name in the reserve list of Backward class category for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor-Grade II under the Tamil Nadu General Service for the years 2003-2006.
2. When the writ petition came up on 22.12.2008, the counsel for respondents took notice. Though the matter was directed to be listed with other cases, subsequently, it was found that those cases have got no connection with the present writ petition. Pending the writ petition, though the petitioner sought for certain interim relief, no order was passed in those applications. On notice from this court, the second respondent TNPSC has filed a counter affidavit, dated 25.2.2010. The petitioner has filed a reply, dated 2.3.2010, to which the second respondent has filed a further rejoinder, dated 22.3.2010.
3. Heard the arguments of Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel leading Ms. R. Meenal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Senthilkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for first respondent and Ms. C.N.G. Ezilarasi, learned Standing Counsel for second and third respondents.
4. The facts leading to filing the writ petition are as follows:
The second respondent called for applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor-Grade II under the Tamil Nadu General Service for the years 2003-2006 to fill up 44 vacancies vide its notification, dated 25.5.2007. Those 44 vacancies were to be filled up on the basis of communal roster. For General term candidates, 14 vacancies were made available, for Backward class community, 13 vacancies, MBC 9 vacancies and for scheduled caste 8 vacancies. It was found that 1756 candidates had applied pursuant to the notification. The selection to the post was to be made by two stages. The first stage comprised of written examination and the second stage was an oral test by way of an interview. The written examination comprised of four papers. The same was conducted on 24.11.2007 and 25.11.2007. Minimum qualification mark to be scored for the candidates at the written examination so as to call for oral test as per the Commission's notification was 180 for all candidates and for scheduled caste, 140 marks and for MBC, it was 160 marks. On the basis of performance in the written test, candidates were called for oral test on a ratio of 1:2. Though it was notified that candidates were called for 44 vacancies as per the original notification, dated 25.5.2007, at the time of tabulation of results of written examination, vacancies were reduced to 41 in view of the Government order in G.O.(4D) No. 104, Home Courts Department, dated 5.12.2007. In view of the reduction of number of vacancies, the vacancies which are made available to various posts were refixed. For General term candidates, it was 13, for BC, it was again 13, for MBC it was 8 and for SC it was 7.
5. In the meanwhile, one R. Srinivasan filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 21873 of 2008. This Court while entertaining the writ petition in M.P. No. 3 of 2008, directed by an order, dated 8.9.2008 to keep one post vacant. Therefore, total vacancies were reduced to 40. Out of 40 vacancies, one MBC vacancy reserved for physically handicapped (deaf) was not filled up due to dearth of candidates. Remaining 39 candidates were selected pursuant to oral test and they were communicated results by the Government. They were also given necessary appointment orders. While preparing the list of selected candidates, a reserve list was drawn for 25% of vacancies for each reserve group in terms of Clause 15A of Part 1 of Preliminary of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules. In view of the same, 2 candidates were placed in the reserve list under...
To continue reading
Request your trial