Madras High Court Directs TNPSC To Cancel Provisional Selection List For 245 Civil Judges, Says Reservation Rules Not Followed

Asking the TNPSC to prepare a revised provisional list within two weeks, the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that the impugned provisional list was prepared without applying Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conditions of Service Act 2016.

“Violation of Section 27(f) of the Act 2016 is apparently visible on mere perusal of the methodology adopted for preparation of provisional select list. Thus, we could arrive at an inevitable conclusion that the provisional select list, published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, is infirm and to be redrawn by placing the toppers in the merit ranking list under the general category candidates in tune with the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Shobana's case, more specifically, in paragraph 26 of the judgement,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea filed by people who had participated in the selection process and had even qualified for interviews. The participants had challenged the provisional list issued by the TNPSC and argued that the procedure adopted for filling the vacancies was erroneous and in direct violation of the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court.

As per Section 27(f) of the Act, if vacancies in the reserved category are not filled, they shall remain unfilled and be treated as “backlog” vacancies in the next recruitment. The recruitment to the backlog vacancies would be made first and then the normal rotation shall be followed.

It is also pertinent to note that in the State of Tamil Nadu v K Shobana (2020), the Apex Court had observed that toppers could not be placed in the reserved category for filling up backlog vacancies and had to be placed in the general category.

The participants had submitted that of the total vacancies, 92 were carried forward vacancies for Section 27(f) of the 2016 Act would apply, and for the remaining vacancies, the rule of reservation will be applied. It was submitted that the top scorers who should have been placed in the general category considering their merit, were instead placed in the reserve category.

It was argued that the erroneous inclusion of meritorious candidates in the reserved category affected the opportunity of other reserved candidates who would have been eligible otherwise.

The court agreed with the petitioners and held that the methodology adopted by the Commission was in violation of the scope of Section 27(f) and the interpretation of the Apex Court. The court also said that this erroneous application had resulted in denial of opportunity to other candidates, who would have been otherwise eligible either under the general category or the reserved category.

“The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has misconstrued the scope of Section 27(f) of Act 2016 and erroneously accommodated the top rank holders in the merit list under the reserved category posts and provided general category posts to other candidate, who scored lesser marks. This anomaly in preparation of the provisional select list for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, came to be challenged,” the court observed.

The court thus directed the commission to cancel the provisional list and prepare a fresh list by scrupulously following the ratio of the Supreme Court.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Balan Haridas, Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan, Mr.Dakshini Reddy, Senior Counsel for Mrs.N.Suneetha

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.R.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel for TNPSC, Mr.B.Vijay, Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, Special Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 91

Case Title: J Sheena v Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Others

Case No: W.P.No.5105 of 2024

Click here to read/download the judgment