Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. We have considered all the materials and the contentions relevant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to the issue under determination. The contention of the appellants that the selection being range wise and hence, it is not a single selection process, is not acceptable. The notification was for selection of 10000 Grade-II Constables and the appointment subsequent thereto was by a joint process. The division of the candidates on range/district wise for administrative exigencies will not alter the nature of the selection process or the applicability of the rule to which the selectees have subjected themselves to. Further, as per Rule 37 of the TNSPSS, which deals with the Area of Service, a member of service shall be liable to serve in any part of the State of Tamil Nadu or when so ordered by the state government in any part of the India, outside such State. Therefore, the contention that selection was range wise has no significance, more so when it comes to fixation of seniority. A candidate is sent for training after the selection. There is no rule which states that the candidates with higher marks in the initial selection will be sent for training first. The marks secured by them in the selection is not a yardstick to divide the candidates into different categories for sending to training. As per Rule 24 (d), for the purpose of fixing the seniority, the marks secured by them at the Recruitment School alone is relevant, while so, it is not for the State to create an artificial division by picking and choosing the candidates for training based on the marks scored by them in the selection. Once the candidates are part of same notification and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis selection, the date on which they are sent for training is irrelevant. It would be relevant to recall the stand of the State in para 3 of their counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, wherein they have claimed that the Tamil Nadu Uniform Service Recruitment Board (TNUSRB), Chennai has conducted the recruitment of 10,000 Gr.II PC (Men and Women) for the year 1995-1996 and furnished the list of selected 10,000 candidates for issuance of appointment orders. In the same paragraph, it was stated that by G.O Ms. No 1915 Home (Pol.3) Department dated 27.12.1996, the recruited candidates were divided into two batches for training, since the infrastructure facilities to train all the candidates at the same time was then not available in the Training Recruitment School. We have already held that the marks secured by the candidates in the initial recruitment process is not a yardstick. The lack of infrastructure cannot be attributed to the candidates and the division cannot take away the right available to them under the Rules. Irrespective of the fact that they are sent for training on different dates, as long as the selection is by a single notification and when the selection of all the 10000 candidates has been undertaken by a single process and communicated by a common communication by the TNUSRB, they are part of the same selection. In this context, the following portion of the Judgment of the Apex Court in A. Raghu v. State of A.P., (2015) 14 SCC 221 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 763 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 268 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (Supra) becomes relevant, which reads as under:

18. In the present case, not only the appellants, but also the respondents 1 to 50 /writ petitioners form part of same notification and hence, a common list of selected candidates consisting of all the 10000 candidates was forwarded by the TNUSRB to the government for issuance of the government order. Further, they all have been promoted as Havildars/Head Constables on the same day on 18.03.2002. The discrimination and violation of the Rules commenced thereafter while fixing the seniority and granting promotion. Much emphasis has been laid on the rejection order dated 19.11.2010 to contend that the request of the respondents 1 to 50 has been rejected and hence, unless it is challenged, the seniority cannot be questioned. We disagree with the said contentions for the following reasons:

(b) The said rejection order neither speaks about the marks secured in the Training School nor about Rule 24 (d) of TNSPSS nor deals with the issues raised in the writ petition,
(c) The correction in the appointment order as AN or indication as FN is irrelevant as the recruitment was by a single notification and the process was jointly conducted. The Selection list forwarded by TNUSRB was also common comprising of all the 10000 candidates,