Madras High Court
R.Arikrishnan vs Tamilnadu Public Service Commission on 1 October, 2024
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No.23155 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.23155 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.25298 & 25301 of 2024
R.Arikrishnan .. Petitioner
Vs.
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Chairman,
TNPSC Road, Broadway,
Chennai – 600 003. .. Respondent
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
of the respondent in his proceedings - “Posts Included in Combined
Library State / Subordinate Services Examination (Interview Posts) –
List OT Annexure” dated 11.01.2024 and to quash the same as being
illegal and unsustainable in law and for a consequential direction to the
respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Library and
Information Assistant Grade II if he comes within the zone of
consideration.
For petitioner : Ms.N.Kavitha Rameshwar
For Respondent : Mrs.G.Hema
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
W.P.No.23155 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the respondent dated 11.01.2024 and for a consequential direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Library and Information Assistant Grade-II.
2.When the writ petition came up for admission on 09.08.2024, this Court passed the following order:
“The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the respondent/TNPSC published a recruitment notification inviting candidates to the Posts included in the list of Combined Library State/Subordinate Services Examination. Pursuant to the above notification, the petitioner submitted his application and participated in the written examination conducted by the respondent- Commission and had secured 297 marks in the written examination.
2.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the candidates, who have secured only 276, 274 and 271 marks were called for the Oral test, and despite the petitioner scoring more than the said marks, viz., 297 marks, the petitioner has not called for the Oral Exam.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that subsequent to the declaration of results, the candidates have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 called for the Oral test, however, so far, no appointment has been made.
4. Intervening at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the event, if the candidates, who secured marks 297 and above were not considered either during document verification or failure on the part of the candidates in producing required experience certificate, in which case, the respondent intends to appoint any other candidate, who secured lesser marks than the prescribed marks, then, the respondent ought to have duly intimated about the defects, so that the petitioner could have rectified the same.
However, no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, the respondent/TNPSC without resorting to such other options, the candidates who have secured lesser marks were called for the oral test.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and it appears to be genuine. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondent to reserve one post for the appointment to the post of Librarian and Information Officer in Anna Centenary Library, until the disposal of this Writ Petition.
6. Post this matter after four weeks.”
3.When the writ petition was taken up for hearing today, counter affidavit of the respondent was filed. Relevant portions are extracted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 hereunder:
“6.It is further humbly submitted that, the petitioner candidate Thiru.R.Arikrishnan, (Reg.No.0101001223) belonging to BC(OBCM) was shortlisted for Onscreen Certificate Verification for both the Interview posts in the said recruitment vide Commission's list dated 14.08.2023, based on merit and other conditions stipulated in the said notification.
7.It is humbly submitted that with reference to experience, the remarks by Scrutiny Committee (HoD) on the experience acquired by the petitioner for certain posts are as follows:-
Sl. Name of the Post Scrutiny Committee Remarks No. (HoD) report
1. Librarian and The petitioner had The application of the Information completed his PG Degree candidate had not been Officer in Anna in the year of May 2019. considered for the post of Centenary Library The Scrutiny Committee Librarian and Information (Interview Post) (HoD) has verified the Officer in Anna Centenary certificates of the Library as he has not acquired candidate. The candidate requisite experience as does not have 5 years of mentioned in para 5(B) of experience after Note (iii) in Notification completing his educational No.04/2023, dated 31.01.2023.
qualification. The scrutiny Committee had reported that this petitioner had shortfall in Experience for the post. (Not Considered)
2. District Library Considered for the post He had not reached the zone of Officer (Interview consideration for Oral Test for Post) the post of District Library Officer. In the List for Oral Test for the said recruitment, his register number was include in the Annexure of the said list under the heading “the candidates with the following https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 Sl. Name of the Post Scrutiny Committee Remarks No. (HoD) report Register Number have not been considered as they have not reached the zone of consideration for provisional admission to Oral Test in the ratio of 1:3”.
3. Librarian and The Petitioner had absented Information partially for the Non-Oral Test Assistant Grade II subject paper examination.
for Kalaignar As per para 9(2)(d) of
Memorial Library Notification No.04/2023, dated
and Anna --- 31.01.2023, the paper attended
Centenary Library by him was not evaluated.
in Public Libraries Hence, he is not eligible for
Department (Non- admission to On Screen
Interview Post) Certificate Verification to the
post, as per the publication list
dated 01.03.2024.
8.The petitioner belongs to BC(OBCM) category, the details of marks obtained by the petitioner in the said examination are as follows:
Paper-I (Subject Paper) - 222.00
Part-B (General Studies) of Paper-II - 75.00
Total - 297.00
ii) The candidate belonging to BC(OBCM) category in the said recruitment, cut-off marks for admission to Oral Test, is mentioned as below:-
S. Name of the Post Distribution of Cut-off marks for No. vacancies admission to Oral Test
1. Librarian and Information BC(G)-1 BC(G)-271.50 Officer in Anna Centenary Total:1 (With 5 years experience) Library in Public Libraries Department https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 S. Name of the Post Distribution of Cut-off marks for No. vacancies admission to Oral Test
2. District Library Officer in GT(G)-1; GT(G)-312.00 Tamil Nadu Educational MBC/DC(G)-1; MBC/DC(G)-279.00 Service SC(A)(W)(PSTM)-1 SC(A)(W)(PSTM)-184.50 Total:3 (With 3 years experience)
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
5.In the instant case, the petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Librarian and Information Officer in Anna Centenary Library and also to the post of District Library Officer. In so far as the post of Librarian and Information Officer in Anna Centenary Library, there is no dispute with respect to the educational qualification possessed by the petitioner. The dispute that has been raised in the counter affidavit pertains to the experience of the petitioner as Librarian.
6.In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the scrutiny committee went through the materials submitted by the petitioner and found that the petitioner does not have five years of experience as Librarian after completing his educational qualification. In view of the same, the petitioner was not considered for appointment to the post of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 Librarian and Information Officer in Anna Centenary Library.
7.The petitioner had provided the following details with respect to his experience while submitting the application and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder:
“Have you possess Experience as LIBRARIAN for a period of not less than FIVE YEARS in ACADEMIC or PUBLIC : Yes / Mk;
or SPECIAL or CORPORATE LIBRARIES?
Name of the Post held / gjtp Period – Period – To Nature of Experience Workshop / From / gjtpf; / gjtpf; / gzpapd; jd;ik Factory / fhyk; Kjy; fhyk; tiu epWtdj;jpd;
bgau;
ANNA LIBRARIAN AND 2010-10-11 2923-01-31 CLASSIFICATION
CENTENARY INFORMATION AND
LIBRARY ASSISTANT-GR1 CATALOGUING
SUPERVISOR
SNT Global LIBRARIAN 2009-07-06 2010-09-30 Overall library
academy of administration
management
studies and
technology
SREE LIBRARIAN 2006-12-08 2009-06-30 OVERALL
SARASWATHI LIBRARY
THYAGARAJA ADMINISTRATION
COLLEGE
V.L.B.JANAKIA ASSISTANT 2005-03-07 2006-12-02 CIRCULATION,
MMAL LIBRARIAN PERIODICALS
COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT &
ARTS AND TECHNICAL
SCIENCE PROCESSING
8.The notification states that the candidate must have experience as Librarian for a period of not less than five years in Academic or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 Public or Special or Corporate Libraries. The experience of the petitioner spans to nearly 12 years. The petitioner in fact had worked in Anna Centenary Library itself apart from working in the Educational Institutions and in an Academic Institution. This experience that was possessed by the petitioner is also backed up with sufficient materials and the scrutiny committee has not considered the same and the scrutiny committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not having five years of experience as Librarian.
9.In so far as the eligibility of the petitioner considering both his educational qualification and experience, no such dispute was raised when the petitioner was called for Certificate Verification. When the candidature of the petitioner was rejected through the impugned proceedings dated 11.01.2024, the petitioner was informed that he had not reached the zone of consideration for provisional admission to oral test in the ratio of 1:3. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was not on the basis of not satisfying the eligibility conditions.
10.This dispute is raised for the first time in the counter. To substantiate the above finding, the experience certificate, that was signed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 by the Chief Librarian and Information Officer, Anna Centenary Library, Chennai, is scanned and extracted hereunder:
11.The next post to which the petitioner had applied was the post of District Library Officer. A stand has been taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not reach the zone of consideration. In so https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 far as zone of consideration is concerned, it will depend upon the marks secured by a candidate and the category under which he is claiming for appointment. The petitioner was claiming for appointment under the category of BC(OBCM). The petitioner had admittedly secured 297 marks in the written examination. In so far as the post of Librarian and Information Officer in Anna Centenary Library, the cut off marks that was fixed to the oral test was 271.50. The petitioner had secured 297 marks. On going through the final list that was published after adding the oral test, it is seen that three candidates under BC (OBCM), who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner have been called for the oral test.
They had secured 276, 274.50 and 271.50 marks respectively.
12.If the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that he did not come within the zone of consideration, there is absolutely no reason as to why three of the candidates under the same category who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner have been called for the oral test.
13.In the counter affidavit, it also deals with the post of Librarian and Information Assistant Grade-II for Kalaignar Memorial Library and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 Anna Centenary Library. The petitioner has not even applied for this post and hence, there is no reason to go into this issue raised in the counter affidavit.
14.In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the grounds that has been raised in the counter for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is unsustainable. Hence, the name of the petitioner has to necessarily added and he has to be called for the oral test. Depending upon the marks secured by the petitioner, his candidature for appointment to the post of Librarian and Information Officer in Anna Centenary Library and District Library Officer has to be considered. This is in view of the fact that this Court had already directed the respondent to keep one post vacant by an order dated 09.08.2024.
15.In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
01.10.2024
krk
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/13
W.P.No.23155 of 2024
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
To
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Chairman, TNPSC Road, Broadway, Chennai – 600 003.
W.P.No.23155 of 2024https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/13 W.P.No.23155 of 2024 01.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/13