Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs K. Shobana on 3 December, 2020
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy
ITEM NO.101 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 3745-3754/2020
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K. SHOBANA ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)
([ TOP OF THE BOARD] )
Date : 03-12-2020 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
For Appellant(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AAG
Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR
Mr. Arindam Ghosh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. N.L.Rajah,Sr.Adv.
Mr. K.Balu,Adv.
Mr. M.R.Jothimanian,Adv.
Mr. B.Karunakaran,Adv.
Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR
Impleading party Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anushree Menon, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for parties partly in the appeal as well as on the issue raised by the parties seeking impleadment.
It is the say of Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2020.12.03 counsel appearing for the appellants that the Rule as it 19:28:55 IST Reason: reads requires the backlog vacancies to be filled in “first” and thus the recruitment has been made as per the 1 statutory provisions. His further submission is that the objective is also to subserve an aspect of seniority as once the backlog vacancies in that category are first filled up, those persons will take their seniority from the backlog year, an aspect which is only arising because of the Rule position as otherwise it would be contrary to service jurisprudence. In this behalf, he has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of K.Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 689 at 698 paras 28, 29 and 30. His submission is that the expression “first” must be given its logical grammatical connotation and cannot be made otiose (Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.(2014) 3 SCC 92 at 122 para 42-45).
He seeks to contend that the reservation policy is in no manner violated by the aforesaid methodology as it works to their interest and a grievance can only be if it is to the contrary. Thus, if you are not entitled to the benefits of a reserved category, would the grievance really arise. There has been no violation of statutory provision in the present case and there can be no right to get reservation beyond the statutory provision.
Learned senior counsel also contends that the respondents before this Court were the lone petitioners before the High Court numbering 10 and the remaining appointments for subjects other than Chemistry to which these respondents belong has already been completed. 2 On a Court query, it is his categorical submission that this is the manner how the Rule has been implemented from its inception in 2016 as also in the case of other subjects for which the process has been completed.
Mr. N.L.Rajah, learned senior counsel for the respondents however contends to the contrary. It is his submission that this problem has arisen in Chemistry alone as the Rule has not been correctly applied. It is also his say that how this reservation has to work is an aspect already enunciated by the High Court in previous judgment in K.R Shanti vs. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai and Anr. (2012) 7 MLJ 241. He seeks to submit that the very reason why the learned Single Judge interfered in the present matter with the selection list and directed its re-working out was because of the incorrectness of the application of the Rule in the case of Chemistry and that is what persuaded the Division Bench not to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. He seeks to refer to the order of the learned Single Judge to substantiate the inconsistency. To facilitate his arguments, he seeks to refer to the manner of drawing up of the provisional seniority list which weighed with the learned Single Judge. It however transpires that the list to which he seeks to refer is not on record.
In view of the aforesaid, it is difficult to appreciate this submission of the learned senior counsel 3 for the respondents as this is a factual matrix and there appears from the arguments of the counsel that there is a serious difference of perception on how the seniority list has been worked in fact i.e. whether it has operated differently for Chemistry than the other subjects and as in the past or is it applied in the same manner.
The result of the aforesaid is that we have to defer the hearing to facilitate Mr. Rajah, learned senior counsel to file additional documents which he may do so in a week’s time as prayed.
We may also note that as per the learned senior counsel for the respondents, no issue of seniority will arise at all and the present matter does not deal with that aspect.
List as part-heard on the non-miscellaneous day post the winter recess.
Insofar as I.A.No.117448 of 2020 is concerned, the grievance made by the applicants is that they are the most meritorious candidates belonging to the MBC category with which the respondents are concerned. In this dispute, their appointment is being delayed, whether they have to be appointed against the backlog vacancy or under the current provisional select list. There is no issue so far as their appointment is concerned.
Insofar as the aforesaid plea is concerned, there appears to be no discord in the arguments of the learned counsels.
4 We are thus of the view that the appropriate interim directions required to be passed would be to permit the provisional select list to be operated even qua the Chemistry subject, thus, to that extent staying the effect of the impugned judgments. However, to avoid any complication later on, in view of there being ten aggrieved respondents before the Court, ten seats at the bottom of the list be not filled in and would abide by the judgment to be delivered by us. The appointment letters be, accordingly, issued within two weeks from today and in view of that direction, I.A.No.117448 of 2020 stands disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
5