Madras High Court
A.R.Gokila Vani vs The Secretary on 27 October, 2022
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.18087 & 18089 of 2022
A.R.Gokila Vani ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
T.N.P.S.C.Road, V.O.C Nagar,
Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Controller of Examinations,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
T.N.P.S.C.Road, V.O.C Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned on line rejection order passed by the second
respondent in his website dated 12.10.2022 in connection with the non-
uploading and production of experience certificate of the petitioner and quash
the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents
to accept the petitioner experience certificate uploaded by the petitioner in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
connection with certificate verification of the petitioner Reg.No.1001001252
and consequently directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate
in the further selection process to the post of Assistant Director of Town and
Country Planning.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan
for Mr.S.Poornachandran
For Respondents : Mr.J.Anandkumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) issued recruitment notification on 25.02.2022 calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning governed under the Tamil Nadu General Service. The writ petitioner applied in response thereto. The writ petitioner successfully cleared the written test. However, her Registration Number did not appear in the list of candidates called for oral test to be held on 01.11.2022. Aggrieved by the said ommission, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as sought for. The respondents filed their position note and the learned standing counsel took me through its contents. The primary contention advanced by the learned standing counsel is that the writ petitioner can be considered only under UG catergory since the PG qualification possessed by her does not meet the eligibility criteria. If the petitioner is to be considered as candidate eligible for the aforesaid post, then apart from possessing UG qualification, she must also have experience as set out in Clause 4(B) in the recruitment notification. In this case, the petitioner ommitted to claim that she is having the said experience. She uploaded the experience certificate during certificate verification. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be called for oral test. The learned counsel pressed for dismissal of the writ petition. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble First Bench rendered in W.A.No.4318 of 2019 dated 11.03.2020 (P.Prabhu Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission).
4.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. Clause 4(B) of the recruitment notification sets out the educational qualification. It reads as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
5.It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is having PG in Infrastructure Engineering and Management. She had passed out of Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai which is affiliated to Anna University in First Class with Distinction. According to TNPSC, the petitioner must possess PG in Infrastructural Planning from recognised University or Institute. Since the petitioner is having PG in Infrastructural Engineering and not Infrastructural Planning, her PG cannot be taken as eligible qualification for the post in question.
6.Of course, it is not for this Court to hold that the PG possessed by the petitioner meets the requirement set out in Clause 4 (B) (1) of the recruitment notification. I therefore have to find out if the petitioner fulfills the qualification set out in Clause 4(B)(3). There is no dispute that the petitioner possesses B.Tech (Civil Engineering). She is also having experience in Town Planning Work for a period of not less than two years in Town Planning Department. A copy of the experience certificate is enclosed at Page No.116 of the typed set of papers. It reads as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
7.It is beyond dispute that the petitioner meets the eligibility criteria. The only question that arises for consideration is whether for having omitted to state that she is having the aforesaid experience in the first instance, the petitioner should be denied opportunity of participating in the oral test. I have already held that the petitioner is having educational qualification as well as the requisite experience as prescribed by TNPSC. It appears that the petitioner was under the genuine and bona fide impression that since she is having requisite PG, she need not make a claim under Clause 4(B)(3). The recruitment notification is also a bit confusing. It is only using the expression “Infrastructure”. The petitioner is having PG in Infrastructure Engineering and Management. Of Course, she does not have a PG in Infrastructure Planning.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would remark that there does not appear to be any course in Infrastructure Planning in India. I refrain from going into the said aspect and I am not going into the said controversy. My attention is drawn to the order dated 07.07.2021 made in W.P(MD)Nos.13825 and 5981 of 2020 (Nelaparnisha Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission). A learned Judge of this Court was confronted with a similar situation. In the said case also, the writ petitioners failed to upload the supporting certificates. Paragraph Nos.5,6,7 and 8 reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022 “5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria & Others V. Dr.C.Mathew & Others reported in 1980 (2) SCC 752 at paragraph 23, had held that a method of convenience for proving possession of a qualification is merely directory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case, had ratified the decision of the Selection Committee in giving credit for the diplomas of the candidates, although the authentic copies of the diplomas were not attached to the application for admission.
6. This proposition was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Appeal (Civil) No.6506 of 2004 dated 05.10.2004 arising in the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. The Chairman, JEE & Others. By applying this ratio for the present case in hand, it could be said that when all other documents were uploaded by the candidate, non uploading of the required Typewriting Tamil Senior Grade Certificate in the application may not be fatal.
7. Furthermore, the commission of this mistake can be treated as a minor mistake. A learned Single Judge of this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar minor error made by a candidate and had invoked the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of M.Abiramadevi Vs. The Secretary, TNPSC, Chennai & another in W.P.No.4700 of 2020 and passed orders in favour of the candidate therein. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022 “10. In view of the above positive development, this Court is not inclined to go into the contentious position adopted by the respondent Commission. No doubt, the Commission is under legal obligation to insist on the compliance of all candidates to every requirement which was part of the notification. Nevertheless, in the case of this nature, when extremely minor error has been committed inadvertently by the candidate concerned, the same cannot be allowed to deprive the candidate of her valuable right to gain employment in Public Service. After all, the saying is “To err is human” and such inadvertent mistake committed by the candidate viz., the petitioner, cannot be visited with a punishment of being denied of a life time opportunity of gaining employment in Public Service. In this case, the petitioner, having been provisionally selected for appointment and if this Court were to accept the objections of the Commission, in the face of the positive development, it would only result in grave injustice to the petitioner, as she has rightly earned her place for provisional appointment on the basis of her performance and hard work.”
8. By taking into account the ratio held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Charles K. Skaria (supra) and Dolly Chhanda (supra), as well as the decision of this Court in Abiramadevi's case (supra), the failure on the part of the petitioner to upload the required Typewriting Tamil Senior Grade Certificate, should not deprive her of the selection.
Consequently, the impugned order of rejection requires to be interfered with and thereby facilitate the candidature of the petitioner to be included in the selection list.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/13 W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022 The aforesaid order allowing the writ petitions can be pressed into service in the present case also. In the case on hand, the selection process is still going on. The petitioner had uploaded the experience certificate at the time of certificate verification itself. Oral test is to be held only next week. It is not as if by granting relief to the petitioner, the selection list is going to be upset or interferred with. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to take part in the oral test to be held on 01.11.2022.
9.This writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
27.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
Note: Issue Order Copy on 28.10.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/13
W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
To
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
T.N.P.S.C.Road, V.O.C Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Controller of Examinations,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
T.N.P.S.C.Road, V.O.C Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/13
W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mga
W.P(MD)No.24004 of 2022
27.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13/13