w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



S. Rama v/s The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai & Another

    W.P. No. 45 of 2017 & W.M.P. Nos. 37 & 38 of 2017 & No. 140 of 2018

    Decided On, 04 November 2022

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Petitioner: Singaravelan, Senior Counsel for M/s. V. Jagadeesan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, S. Anitha, Special Government Pleader, R2, G. Hema, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent with regard to the Order passed in memorandum No.6207/OTD- B2/ 2010 dated 26.12.2013 and to quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to hold counselling to the petitioner for making selection to the post as the petitioner had already attended oral test for appointment to the post of Assistant Section Officer (Finance) or to the post of Assistant in Finance Department in Tamil Nadu Secretariat as per the notification No.258 dated 30.12.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent with all consequential monetary and service benefits from the date, which the persons similarly situated like the petitioner have been granted such as the appointment etc.)

1. The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order of rejection dated 26.12.2013, rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for selection and appointment to the post included in Combined Subordinate Services Examination-1, 2009-11 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner participated in the process of selection for Combined Subordinate Services Examination-1, pursuant to the notification dated 30.12.2010. She was successful in the written examination and scored 256.50 marks in total. The cut off mark for General Turn (Woman) PSTM candidate was 214.50. Thus, the petitioner scored higher mark than that of cut off marks fixed for General Turn (Woman) PSTM candidate. The petitioner was selected, she was called to attend counselling for the purpose of issuing appointment order. The petitioner could not be able to attend the counselling as she was on medical leave on the particular day.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner is serving as Revenue Inspector in the Revenue Department and on the particular day on which the counselling was held, the petitioner applied medical leave officially and the said medical leave was recorded in the Register and she had submitted proof to establish the same. While so, the case of the petitioner was not considered for issuance of appointment order. The request made by the petitioner for issuing an appointment order was turned out by the competent authority which resulted in filing of the present writ petition.

4. It is not dispute between the parties that the petitioner scored higher than that of the cut off marks. The cut off mark was 214.50 and the petitioner scored 256.50. Since the petitioner could not be able to attend counselling she was denied right of appointment, despite the fact that she scored higher mark than that of the cut off marks.

5. In this context, this Court requested the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to ascertain the post for which the petitioner is eligible for appointment. Accordingly, by letter dated 04.11.2022, it was informed that the petitioner would be eligible to hold the post of Junior Co-operative Auditor in the Department of Co-operative Audit, Assistant in Finance Department, Secretariat and Common degree post available in other departments. It is further contended that no post is available or left unfilled under General Turn (Woman) PSTM category, though post may not be available under a particular category but the respondents could not be able to establish that no post is vacant in any one of the Department in which the petitioner can be accommodated.

6. The right of the petitioner for appointment was denied merely on the ground that she failed to participate in the counselling. Non-participation of the candidate in a counselling would not be a ground to deny appointment, since the petitioner in the present case was selected as she scored higher mark than that of the cut off marks. Even the non-participation was explained by the petitioner and records relating to the medical leave availed by her was also submitted before the competent authorities. When the petitioner could not be able to attend counselling on account of genuine reason, the right of appointment cannot be denied.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that yet another candidate namely P.Radha was given concession and she was permitted to join duty. While so, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered.

8. No doubt, the instruction to the candidates issued to the TNPSC are to be scrupulously followed. A candidate violating the procedure is not entitled for selection and appointment. However, in the present case, there is no such violation committed by the petitioner. She participated in all the processes and was successful and scored higher marks than that of the cut off marks and she was eligible for appointment to any one of the post in Combined Subordinate Services Examination-1. However, on account of medical reasons, she could not be able to participate in the counselling and she had submitted all the relevant documents to establish that she availed the medical leave on the particular day which was recorded in her Service Register and therefore, she must be considered. In such circumstances, a candidate need not be deprived of her

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

right of an appointment and this being the factum, this Court is inclined to consider the writ petition and consequently, the impugned order dated 26.12.2013is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue an appointment order to the writ petitioner in any one of the post under the Combined Subordinate Services Examination-1 for which the petitioner is eligible in any Department, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R