Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The main contention of the writ petitioners is that the Notification No.219 dated 15.11.2009 issued only for 13 vacancies of ASO ( Law Department) in Secretariat and 4 vacancies of ASO in the office of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). Hence, the Government has no power to fill up 186 posts of ASO i.e. beyond the vacancies advertised in Notification No.219 issued by TNPSC by increasing the number of vacancies.The abovesaid writ petitions were filed only against the Government and TNPSC. Subsequently, some of the candidates selected as ASOs impleaded themselves as respondents in both the writ petition and contested the same.

18. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Vijay Narayan appearing for one of the selected candidates (Appellant in W.A.No.487 of 2012), submitted that by Notification No.219 dated 15.11.2009, 4 vacancies under Code No 2201 in TNPSC and 13 vacancies under Code No.1073 in Law Department, Secretariat were called for and the writ petitioner in W.P.No.6114 of 2011, who is an unemployed graduate, was qualified to apply for the post even during the date of advertisement itself, but he has not applied. Therefore, the said writ petitioner cannot have any grievance over the increase in the vacancy position because his right to participate in the process was never affected.

26. With regard to the locus standi of the writ petitioner, it is submitted that by the learned senior counsel that there is no estoppel in challenging the action of the Government and TNPSC merely because appellant had not applied for the post pursuant to the notification dated 15.11.2009 or for the subsequent notification. This appellant is entitled to apply and his right to apply for 26 posts under Post Code No.2201 and 186 posts under Post Code No.1702 has been denied by not inviting the said posts/vacancies through the Notification. Since it was not invited by the Notification, now it cannot be contended that as the writ petitioner had not applied for the post, he has no locus standi to question the same. Had the applicant known that the vacancy would be increased, he would have applied for the post in pursuance of Notification dated 05.11.2009. But, here, without issuing any Notification, surprisingly vacancies were increased, which is against the Constitutional mandate. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon a judgment reported in Amlan Jyoti Borooah .vs. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227).

28. Learned senior counsel Mr.C.Selvaraj appearing for respondents 2 and 3 in W.A.No.487 of 2012 submitted that each service is governed by Subordinate Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Code number of ASO in Law Department is 1073 and for the ASO in Secretariat other than Law and Finance Departments, code Number is 1072 and for the ASO in TNPSC, Code No.is 2201. Each Unit has got separate seniority, promotion in the respective unit. One cannot be promoted to other Unit vice versa. Under Code No.2201 in Notification No.219, only 4 vacancies were notified and under Code No.1073, 13 vacancies were notified and only at the time of sending call letters, 186 vacancies are increased in the post of ASO in Secretariat Service without issuing any Notification, but by G.O.(4D) No.7 dated 22.03.2010. Since it has been mentioned in Clause 3-B of the Notification that the vacancies advertised is only approximate, it does not mean that vacancies in particular Code Number can be increased. In other words, there can be modification of vacancies either increase or decrease and it could be only in respect of notified posts with code number. Moreover, in G.O., the Government has not stated that those direct recruitments are to be made from and among the candidates who applied pursuant to the Notification No.219 dated 15.11.2009. Therefore, the question of challenging the G.O.does not arise. So far as the letter sent by the Secretary dated 22.03.2010 to the TNPSC requesting them to recruit 186 posts of ASO, it is only an only internal communication. Under the said letter, there is no reference with regard to the policy decision taken by the Government and as such, the question of challenging the said letter also l does not arise in this case. Under such circumstances, the selection of 186 posts of ASO is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.