P. Kumaran vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The petitioner, a handicapped person, preferred this writ petition for direction on respondents to appoint him as

Civil Judge (Jr. Division) against 3% quota earmarked for physically handicapped persons.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner addressed the court on merit on 4th Sept., 2008. This Court having noticed that the petitioner applied

pursuant to a notification dated 4th Sept., 2003, issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and that, subsequently, again advertisement

published on 10th May, 2008, for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) pursuant to which recent examination held on 2nd/3rd Aug., 2008,

counsel for the petitioner was asked to address this Court as to how appointment could be made out of a stale panel, prepared in the year 2003

i.e. after five years and whether out of 101 notified posts (notified on 4th Sept., 2003) any post was kept vacant for appointment of the petitioner.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Service Commission produced a communication sent to her by the Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission by Letter No. 7709/OTD/C2/02 dated 5th Sept., 2008, wherein following information has been given:

i) Candidates have been selected against all the vacancies notified except Two Scheduled Tribes vacancies which have been carried forwarded

and subsequently notified.

ii) All the selected candidates have joined duty and no non-joining/left vacancies have been reported by the Government and hence operation of

the reserve list does not arise.

iii) The reservation for PH has been followed for this recruitment.

In the enclosure attached to the letter, further information has been communicated, as recorded hereunder:

It is submitted that Thiru p.Kumaran (Register No. 421631) was one among the candidates applied for direct recruitment to the Post of Civil

Judge (Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate I Class) 2002 - 2003. He had claimed to belong to BC (Ortho) Category for the above said

recruitment. The marks obtained by him in the Main Written Examination is 221.00 and at oral Test 30.00 (Tottal 251.00 marks). He has not been

selected for the said post. However his name has been included in the Reserve List under GT (G), BC(G) & GT (G) PH.

As per Notification the distribution of 110 vacancies is as follows:

SC - 19 (including 6 vacancies reserved for women)

STs 3 (including 1 vacancy reserved for women and 2 carried forward vacancies)

MBC/DC 22 (including 7 vacancies reserved for women & 1 for PH-Deaf)

BC 33 (including 9 vacancies reserved for women (among 9 vacancies 1 for PH-Ortho)

GT 33 (including 10 vacancies reserved for women & 1 for PH-Blind)

---

Total 110 (Women 33 (1PH Ortho) to be selected as per Notification

===

With regard to petitioner''s contention in Para (4) and (7) it is submitted that according to Rule 21(b) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu

State & Subordinate Services, excluding the 30% vacancies, women candidates shall be entitled to compete for the remaining 70% of vacancies

along with the male candidates. In accordance with the above said Rule the meritorious candidates belonging to women category have been

selected against General Vacancy also.

Further as per Notification 33 women candidates are eligible for selection against the vacancies reserved for the women category alone.

The No. of women candidates actually selected in each category are as follows:

SC - 11 (1 SC Woman can selected against GT (W)

4 SC Women candidates selected against SC(G)

6 SC Women candidates selected against reserved vacancies.

MBC/DC 13 2 (candidates selected against GT (G)

2 candidates selected against GT (W)

2 candidates selected against MBC/DC (G)

7 candidates selected against reserved vacancy)

BC 17 (3 candidates selected against GT (G)

5 candidates selected against GT (W)

9 candidates selected against reserved vacancies)

GT 3

---

Total 44

===

With regard to petitioner''s contention that 3% reservation have not been followed in this recruitment, it is submitted that the reservation as per

Notification for PH Category is as follows:

MBC/DC - 1 PH (Deaf)

BC - 1 PH Ortho - Reserved for Women

GT - 1 PH Blind

To fill the above said PH vacancies, only 5 PH candidates were summoned for the Oral Test. Out of 5 candidates, 1 candidate (Register No.

421000) has not obtained the minimum marks prescribed for viva voce and hence was not eligible for selection.

The details of remaining 4 candidates are as follows:

Register No. Marks Community PH Category

420895 264 GT Ortho

421631 (Petitioner) 251 BC

Ortho 423289 204 BC

Ortho 423514 197 MBC/DC

Ortho

For the 1 vacancy reserved for GT (G) PH Blind, the candidate with Register No. 420895 who secured 264.00 marks belonging to GT(G) PH

(Ortho) has been selected against the said vacancy as no Blind candidate was available.

For 1 vacancy reserved for PH under BC (W) Category no BC(W) PH candidate was available for selection. Hence as envisaged in Rule 21 (b)

and the fourth proviso to Rule 22(aa) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services as no PH (Women) candidate

belonging to Backward Class category was available the said vacancy was filled by non-PH Women candidate belonging to Backward Classes.

In respect of 1 vacancy reserved for MBC/DC (Deaf), as no deaf candidate belonging to MBC/DC was available the said vacancy was filled by

MBC/DC (Ortho) candidate.

The petitioner Thiru. P. Kumaran (Reg. No. 421631) who has secured 251 marks and belonging to BC(G) PH (Ortho) category was therefore

placed only in the Reserve List.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions.

In the present case, as we find that the panel was prepared in the year 2003 and now become stale after about 5 years and there is no vacancy for

any backward category out of the notified 101 posts and that subsequent advertisement has been published in May, 2008, we are of the view that

no relief could be granted to the petitioner.

There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. But there shall be no

order as to costs.