Madras High Court
N.Anbarasan vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service ... on 22 September, 2014
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.09.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition No.32733 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 N.Anbarasan ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, No.3, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C Nagar, Chennai - 600 003. Rep. by its Secretary. 2.Kannan 3.The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai. ... Respondents (R3 suo motu impleaded as per order dated 03.07.2014 by DHPJ in W.P.No.32733/2013) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the list of candidates selected provisionally for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Draughtsman Grade III in the Town and Country Planning Department in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Subordinate Services 2007-2012 dated 22.11.2013 of the first respondent herein and quash the same and direct the first respondent herein to select and appoint the petitioner as Draughtsman Grade III in the said service by direct recruitment under Registration No.00102183 for the said service. For Petitioner : Ms.AL.Ganthimathi For Respondents : Mr.M.Devendran for R1 Mr.N.Ramesh for R2 O R D E R
The first respondent TNPSC issued a notification dated 02.04.2012 calling for direct recruitment for the post of Draughtsman, Grade III in the Town and Country Planning Department. There are 17 vacancies as per the said notification. Those vacancies are to be filled up against the Roster Point (RP) between 10 and 26 in the 200 Point Roster as per the III Schedule under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules.
2. The recruitment is based on the written examination and oral test. The marks for the written examination and interview are 300 and 40 respectively. After the written test and interview, the TNPSC published the rank list, which is as follows:-
Sl.No. Name Marks Community
1. V.Utharavel 240.00 SC
2. R.Munirathinam 231.00 MBC/DC
3. A.Shanthi 220.50 BC-OBCM
4. M.Vijayakumar 214.50 MBC/DC
5. G.Kannan 213.00 MBC/DC
6. G.Gopalan 210.00 BC-OBCM
7. S.Sudhakar 210.00 BC-OBCM
8. K.Kumaresan 207.00 BC-OBCM
9. K.Logesh 205.50 BC-OBCM
10. N.Anbarasan 205.50 MBC/DC
11. M.Elaiyaraja 202.50 MBC/DC
12. J.Balakumar 198.00 MBC/DC
13. E.Arunkumar 195.00 BC-OBCM
14. N.S.Abitha Shree 193.50 BC-OBCM
15. S.Sebastian 190.50 BC-OBCM
16. P.Krishna Moorthy 189.00 MBC/DC
17. A.Sangeetha 184.50 BC-OBCM
18. T.Palanivel Rajan 181.50 BC-OBCM
19. D.Raja 181.50 MBC/DC
20. R.Viswanathan 180.00 SC
21. A.Lalitha 178.50 MBC/DC
22. R.Dhanasekar 178.50 MBC/DC
23. D.Saravanan 177.50 BC-OBCM
24. A.Sathish 177.00 SC
25. K.Raja 175.50 SC
26. A.Kamalanathan 175.50 SC
27. S.Radha 171.00 SC
28. G.Fakrudeen Khan 168.00 BC-M
29. P.Jayaraj 157.50 SC
30. C.Vanmathi 156.00 SC
31. H.Peermohamed 156.00 BC-M
32. M.Sampurana Valli 154.50 SC-A
33. M.Chithiralega 144.00 SC-A
34. S.Asaraf Ali 144.00 BC-M
3. As per Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the details of the Roster Point between the Roster Point 10 and 26 are as follows:-
S.No. Turn No. Category
1. 10 BC
2. 11 GT
3. 12 SC(W)
4. 13 MBC/DC
5. 14 BC
6. 15 BC(M)
7. 16
SC 8 17 MBC/DC 9 18 BC(W) PSTM
10. 19 GT(W) PSTM
11. 20 BC
12. 21 GT
13. 22 SC
14. 23 MBC/DC(W)(PSTM)
15. 24 BC
16. 25 GT 17 26 SC(W)(PSTM)
4. It is not in dispute that Roster Points 18, 19, 23 and 26 are meant for the candidates belonging to Tamil Medium, i.e, candidates who obtained educational qualification in Tamil Medium as prescribed in the notification.
5. Initially, the Tamil Nadu Government issued Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3 of 2010 providing reservation for persons, who obtained educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment through Tamil Medium of instruction. It is stated that the said Ordinance became an Act. Section 6 of the said Ordinance reads as follows:- "6.Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, where adequate number of qualified and suitable persons studied in Tamil medium are not available fore appointment in the preferential vacancies, such unfilled vacancies shall be filled up with persons studied in other mediums within the respective category".
6. It is stated that the aforesaid four roster points 18,19,23, and 26 are not filled up, due to non availability of PSTM (Women) category candidates, belonging to those categories. It is stated that though 824 applications were received, pursuant to the notification for direct recruitment to the post of Draughtsman Grade III, around 400 candidates participated in the selection process. In the earlier occasion, though it was stated that 46 candidates were called for interview, only 34 candidates were called for interview and their rank list is as extracted above.
7. Since the aforesaid Roster Points 18,19,23 and 26 are not filled up among the persons, who were called for interview, it is stated that TNPSC would go down the line and find out and send interview card to others female members belonging to those community for which reservation is made towards Roster Points 18, 19, 23 and 26. If suitable woman PSTM candidates are not available in the respective communal category, then those vacancies have to be filled by Woman (Non-PSTM) candidates as those turns (18,19,23 and 26) are earmarked for women candidates. If suitable Non-PSTM candidates are not available, then those vacancies have to be filled by male candidates with PSTM. If suitable male PSTM candidates are not available, then those vacancies have to be filled by Non-PSTM male candidates in the respective community.
8. Therefore, the petitioner who belongs to MBC and a male candidate cannot seek to fill the post at this stage against Roster Points 18, 19, 23 and 26. It is not in dispute that he obtained 205.50 marks out of 340 marks. It is stated that he is PSTM Male candidate. But those Roster Points viz., 18,19, 23 and 26 are meant for PSTM women candidates in the respective communal categories as per the roster points. As stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner may or may not get a chance. If no PSTM candidate as stated in paragraph 9 is available, the petitioner may get a chance and I am not going into the said issue now.
9. Roster Points 13 and 17 are reserved for MBC candidates. One Thiru R.Munirathnam, who is ranked at Sl.No.2 was selected at Roster Point 13 and one Thiru.M.Vijayakumar, who is ranked at Sl.No.4 is selected against roster point 17 and both are MBC candidates.
10. The second respondent, who is ranked at Sl.No.5, and who belongs to MBC, was selected against roster point 21, which is meant for General Turn candidate.
11. I am of the view that the selection of the second respondent at roster point 21 is not proper and he should be selected against roster point 17 and M.Vijayakumar should have been selected against roster point 13.
12. The whole confusion has arisen in view of allotting Thiru R.Munirathinam, who ranks at Sl.No.2 and who also belongs to MBC at roster point 13 by the TNPSC. In my view, Munirathinam should have been selected at Roster Point 21.
13. Roster Points 11, 21 and 25 are meant for GT candidates. therefore, those three roster points shall be filled first from among the three top rank holders. The three top rank holders at Sl.No.1, 2 and 3 are Thiru. V.Utharavel, Thiru.R.Munirathinam and Selvi A.Shanthi, as per the rank list that is extracted above.
14. Under the wrong notion, TNPSC has interchanged roster points in between the MBC candidates under the guise of protecting seniority. R.Munirathinam was selected against roster point 13 instead of roster point 21 on the ground that Munirathinam secured higher marks than two other MBC candidates namely Sl.No.4 Vijayakumar and Sl.No.5 Kannan in the rank list.
15. In my view, the selection against the roster points has nothing to do with the seniority. In fact this was made clear by the Apex Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana ((2003) 5 SCC 604) and the same same was also considered by this court in W.P.No.17647 of 2004 dated 28.01.2011 [P.Kuppusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu].
16. I had an occasion to consider a similar mistake committed in exchanging the roster points within the same community under the guise of protecting the seniority in Writ Petition No.29825 of 2013 [Dr.Olga George M.D(Hom) v. State of Tamil Nadu) dated 05.09.2014. However, in my view, this will not help the petitioner, who also belongs to MBC Community, as he is less in rank than the second respondent.
17. It is true that initially the second respondent was not selected when a provisional selection list was published on 03.07.2013 and in his place, the petitioner was selected. While the second respondent ranks at Sl.No.5, the petitioner ranks at Sl.No.10. Therefore, in the normal course, the second respondent could have been selected. But he was not selected provisionally, though he secured more marks than the petitioner, since TNPSC did not agree with his experience certificate.
18. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the educational qualification and the experience that are required as per the notification issued by TNPSC, which is as follows:-
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION: (as on 02.04.2012) Candidate should possess the following or its equivalent Qualification Qualification Experience
(i) Post Diploma in Town and Country Planning awarded by the Government of Tamil Nadu Or Nil
(ii) Diploma in Civil Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training Or
(iii) Diploma in Architectural Assistantship awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training
(iv)Any other Qualification Equivalent to the qualifications mentioned in (ii) or (iii) above Experience in the field of Civil Engineering for not less than 3 years Note :
(i) The Diploma qualification prescribed should have been obtained after passing the SSLC.
(ii)The Post Diploma Qualification prescribed should have been obtained after passing the SSLC and Diploma.
19. The second respondent was not selected on the ground that the experience certificate given by him in the field of Civil Engineering for not less than three years was not acceptable. It was rejected only on the ground that the certificate was issued by his father. The same was initially rejected by the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning when a letter was addressed by TNPSC to verify the experience certificate. Based on the same, provisional list was published, wherein, the petitioner was shown as one of the selected candidate.
20. Later the same Commissioner of Town and Country Planning issued a revised order accepting the experience certificate.
21. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter dated 22.04.2014 of the first respondent.
"4. It is submitted that while scrutinising the applications of the candidates who entered the selection zone based on the Total Marks obtained by them in written examination and oral test, it was found that one candidate namely Thiru.G.Kannan (Reg.No.00105006, total marks 213.00) had produced practical experience certificate obtained from his father's own concern. Hence, the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning was addressed to verify the experience qualification possessed by Thiru.G.Kannan. In the report received from the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, it has been stated that the experience possessed by Thiru.G.Kannan can't be accepted. Based on the above said report the candidate Thiru.G.Kannan who was in the selection zone under MBC/DC (G) category was excluded from the selection list and the next candidate Thiru.N.Anbarasan (Reg.No.00102183, total marks 205.50) in the category of MBC/DC (G) was included in the selection list and the selection list for 13 vacancies approved by the Commission and it was hosted in the Commission's Website on 03.07.2013. Remaining 4 vacancies, are reserved for women candidates under PSTM category from different communal categories as per the reservation rules. The selection list in respect of the above said vacancies could not be prepared due to paucity of candidates.
5. In the meantime, it is submitted that the candidate Thiru.G.Kannan represented to reconsider his experience. Hence, the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning was again addressed for his remarks on the representation received from Thiru.G.Kannan. The Commissioner of Town and Country planning had reported in his letter dated 25.07.2013, that the experience qualification possessed by Thiru.G.Kannan can be accepted."
22. The experience certificate that is required as per the notification is that one should possess experience in the filed of Civil Engineering. Nowhere it is stated that a candidate should not have worked in the project undertaken by his father, particularly, when the candidate is a qualified person. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner is an approved Contractor in the Highways Department as per the letter of the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning. The second respondent has produced documents to establish that his father was carrying out various civil works for the Government.
23. Therefore, based on the aforesaid facts, the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning revised the order and based on such revised order, the second respondent was selected in the place of the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity with the same, particularly, when the second respondent obtained more marks. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Experience Certificate is a bogus one and the second respondent did not have any experience as per the Certificate. Any certificate issued by any Civil Engineer is taken as a valid certificate. If it is so, it is not fair to reject the certificate issued by the father of the petitioner on the sole ground that the father of the petitioner is a Civil Engineering Contractor under the Highways Department.
24. The TNPSC has similarly committed wrong by allotting the persons against roster point in the case of backward community also. Roster points 10, 14, 20 and 24 are meant for Backward Community candidates. In this case, the third rank holder Selvi A.Shanthi belongs to BC Community. She should have been allotted against roster point 25 against General category, despite the community to which she belongs. But A.Shanthi was selected against roster point 10 instead of allotting at roster point 25. Therefore, if Shanthi is allotted against roster point 25, roster point 10 shall be filled by G.Gopalan, who belongs to Backward Community and who ranks at Sl.No.6. Likewise, S.Sudhakar, who belongs to Backward Community, who ranks at 7 shall be allotted at roster point 14 instead of allotting at roster point 20 by the TNPSC. This mistake of interchanging the roster points within the same community was committed under the guise of protecting the seniority. TNPSC has proceeded erroneously, as if the seniority is determined by the roster points.
25. In the same way, A.Kumaresan, who also belongs to BC and ranks at 8 was allotted at Roster Point 24 instead of allotting at roster point 20 by the TNPSC. Likewise, K.Lokesh, who belongs to BC and ranks at Sl.No.9 was allotted at roster point 25 instead of allotting at roster point 24. As stated above, roster point 25 is meant for GT and the same shall be allotted to A.Shanthi, who ranks at Sl.No.3.
26. However, the interchange of the roster points in between the Backward community will in no way help the petitioner as he does not belong to Backward Community.
27. I make it clear that the TNPSC shall appropriately allot the roster points as stated above in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above and the same will be as follows:-
Sl.No. Name Roster point allotted by TNPSC Roster Point as per the Apex Court
1.
V.Utharavel RP1 RP11
2. R.Munirathinam RP13 RP21
3. A.Shanthi RP10 RP25
4. M.Vijayakumar RP17 RP13
5. G.Kannan RP21 RP17
6. G.Gopalan RP14 RP10
7. S.Sudhakar RP20 RP14
8. K.Kumaresan RP24 RP20
9. K.Logesh RP25 RP24
10. R.Viswanathan RP16 RP16
11. A.Sathish RP22 RP22
12. S.Radha RP12 RP12
13. G.Fakrudeen Khan RP15 RP15
28. In the said circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Therefore, I am not inclined to set aside the selection of the second respondent. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, as stated above, the petitioner has remote chance as against roster points 19 and 23 if no PSTM women candidates are available as Roster Point 23 is meant for MBC (PSTM) Woman and Roster Point 19 is meant for General Turn (PSTM) Woman. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.09.2013 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No svki To
1.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, No.3, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C Nagar, Chennai - 600 003.
Rep. by its Secretary.
2.The Commissioner of Town and Country Planning No.807, Anna Salai, Chennai.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
svki W.P.No.32733 of 2013 22.09.2014