V. Valarmathi and Others vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Mr. Mathew Moses and Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Manoharan and Mr. S.C. Herold Singh learned Government Advocates for the respondents.

On the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission notifying the vacancy position, selection process by conducting examination were done by the Commission and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission also issued proceedings, based on which, various departments of the Government including the hospitals have issued appointment orders to various candidates including the petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 11052, 11053 and 11278 of 2009 and the appointment orders came to be issued by the respective departments on 18.08.2009 and on 17.08.2009 respectively. It is pursuant to the said appointment orders, since they were not given respective posting in the department, the above writ petition came to be filed praying direction against the respondents to permit the petitioners to report for duty as per the appointment orders and by virtue of applications for amendment the writ petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 11052 and 11053 of 2009 seek consequential directions to pay the scale of pay to the petitioners therein with effect from their dates of their appointment.

On the basis of a representation made by the Association of Employees, who were temporarily appointed by the Government under Rule 10(A)(1) of the rule for the purpose of appointing them in the regular vacancy, the Government has issued G.O. No. 51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department Dated 22.05.2009, providing for a Special Competitive Examination for all those persons in respect of 1596 vacancies held by them in the post of typist and steno-typist under Rule 10(a)(1).

In the said competitive examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as per G.O. No. 51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, Dated 22.05.2009, for those candidates who were holding the post under Rule 10(a)(i) category, certain candidates have passed the examination and others failed and those candidates who have passed in the said examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under the Special Competitive Examination as per G.O. No. 51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, Dated 22.05.2009, have filed W.P. Nos. 7621 to 7624, 8076, 8077 and 8184 of 2009. They are the candidates, who belonged to Madurai and Tirunelveli District. Having succeeded in the said Special Competitive Examination, they have filed the said writ petitions for direction against the departments under which they were holding the post of Rule 10(a)(1) to permit them to appear in the Special Competitive examination pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.06.2001 and also for consequential relief of absorbing them in various departments.

While admitting these writ petitions, some interim orders have been passed by this Court on various occasions directing the respondents to maintain status-quo, with the result, the persons who were originally given appointment order after passing the regular competitive examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission were unable to be given posting on the other hand, the second category of persons who were appointed temporarily under Rule 10(a)(1), who have subsequently appeared in the Special Competitive Examination as per advertisement No. 201 dated 18.06.2009 and passed in the Special Competitive Examination-2009 have continued to hold the posts held them, while they were appointed under Rule 10(a)(1). In these circumstances, the Government as well as those candidates have found certain difficulties in giving the posting orders, whereas the persons, who have passed original examination filed petitions to vacation the interim order stated above.

When similar cases arose for consideration in respect of other districts, ultimately the Hon''ble First Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court has taken the batch of appeals in Writ Appeals Nos. 1209 of 2009 etc., and when the issue arose as to how the recruitment process is to be directed to be fulfilled, taking note of the dispute between the parties and ultimately the Hon''ble First Bench in the said judgment dated 22.02.2010, has taken all three categories of candidates:

Those candidates who have passed the regular competitive examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission awaiting the posting to various departments, in spite of the orders of appointments having been issued.

Those Candidates who were originally appointed on temporarily basis under Rule 10(a)(1) and who were permitted to participate in the Special Competitive Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 2009 and who have passed the examination and who are holding the post held by them under Rule 10(a)(1) under temporary basis.

Those candidates, who were appointed originally temporarily under Rule 10(a)(1) and directed to undergo the competitive examination under the Special Competitive Examination conducted in 2009, in which they have failed.

Taking notice of the said three categories of the candidates, the Hon''ble First Bench has held that among the three categories, the first category, who have originally passed the regular competitive examination and who are given posting are to be given preference. Thereafter, the remaining vacancies have to be filled up by the Rule 10(a)(1) candidates, who having written the Special Competitive Examination and passed the same. And thereafter, if any remaining seats are available it is, for the Government to take note of the third category. The operative portion of the order of the First Bench is as follows:

In these circumstances, we dispose of these appeals by permitting the State Government to fill up the posts by appointing those who have passed the examination conducted by the Public Service Commission in the regular course first. The persons who have passed in the special drive will be required to be shifted, if necessary, and those at the bottom of the list may have to give way for the persons who have been selected regularly. However, they can claim appointment in the future vacancy. This order shall govern the prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition also. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.

Even though the said order is in respect of various districts, in which the Southern districts are not forming part, the principle laid down by the Hon''ble First Bench of this Court is applicable to the cases on hand, about which there is no difficulty.

But as submitted by Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, who are holding the post of Rule 10(a)(1), that having passed in the Special Competitive Examination, they are not claiming any seniority right over the persons who have been regularly selected by the Public Service Commission, but their apprehension is that if they are directed to vacate the post held by them under Rule 10(a)(1), there is every possibility that the respondents may not provide employment. On the other hand, the prayer in these writ petitions filed by such candidates is to direct the respondents especially the employees under whom they are working as Rule 10(a)(1) category as well as Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is to conduct Special Competitive Examination as per the advertisement dated 18.06.2001 and permit the said petitioners to participate and consequently to absorb them into their service. In as much as it is not in dispute that these writ petitioners were permitted to participate in the Special Competitive Examination-2009 and have infact participated in the Special Competitive Examination of 2009 and they have also passed as declared by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, certainly they are entitled for the consequential remedy of absorption into service, but that is depending upon the availability of vacancies in various departments, which has to be decided by the Government.

In such view of the matter, the apprehension of the said petitioners that they may not be provided with employment has no basis at all. However, in the said writ petitions since major portion of the prayer has been complied with, they stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to complete the process of absorption within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In so far as the petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 11052 and 11053 and 11278 of 2009 are concerned, they have not only passed the regular competitive examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, but also based on their selection in the competitive examination they have received the appointment orders as early as in the month August, 2009 and it is because of the order of stay passed by this Court, the Government is unable to provide them employment as per the appointment order. In these circumstances, while the formula for making appointment has been laid by the Hon''ble First Bench as stated above, it is needless to say the respondents are bound to follow the same process in completing the selection process. The said writ petitions are disposed of with a direction against the respondent to complete the process of selection as per the First Bench Judgment enumerated above. In that view of the matter, the interim order passed by the Court stands vacated, so as to enable to respondents to complete the process. It is made clear that the entire process relating to these petitions shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

The Writ Petitions stands disposed of with the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.