Aag j ravinthiren request agreed and case posted tomorrow Hence this Court cannot tolerate it by merely taking it as a statement mistakenly given before this Court.tnpsc case R sureskumar j j kumaresh babu j tnpsc counsel hema

W.A.No.604 of 2018 and

C.M.P.No.5872 of 2018 and

Cont.P.No.2271 of 2017

R.SURESH KUMAR, J.

and

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

[Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.]

Pursuant to our order dated 08.09.2023, a further affidavit dated 19^th September, 2023 was filed by the Secretary, TNPSC on 20.09.2023. On that date, at the request of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the TNPSC, it was directed to be listed today. That is how the matter is again taken up for hearing today.

2. We have gone through the further affidavit filed by the Secretary, TNPSC dated 19.09.2023, where certain shocking revelation has been made by the Secretary to TNPSC. Paragraphs 10 to 14 of the affidavit speak for itself. Therefore, for better appreciation, the said paragraphs of the affidavit filed by the Secretary dated 19^th September,

2023 is extracted hereunder:

“10. It is respectfully submitted that after filling up the 61 vacancies reserved for Backward Classes Muslim (BCM) – General category and in view of the nonavailability of any other candidates admitted under the Backward Classes Muslim (BCM) – General category (due to absenteeism/unwillingness), the correct course of action would have been halting further selection against the vacancies reserved for Backward Classes Muslim (BCM) – General category at that point and eligible candidates next in rank to the last candidate admitted int eh Backward Classes Muslim (BCM) – General category (from the overall ranking list), ought to have been called for the II^nd phase of counselling and remaining 6 vacancies ought to have been filled up with meritorious candidates only. However, selection was continued by filling up the 6 vacancies with candidates available during the counselling session of I phase, who were in fact ineligible for selection against the Backward Classes Muslim (BCM) – General vacancies.

11. It is respectfully submitted that the above lapse was the reason for the selection of less meritorious candidates in Backward Classes Muslim (BCM) – General category.
12. S.Saibulla filed W.P.No.6842 of 2013 alleging that certain candidates with lesser marks were selected. The W.P. Was allowed in favour of the petitioner by orders dated 05.01.2017. In the said W.P., the Hon’ble Court has passed orders as follows:

“XXX

5.Under such circumstances, the petitioner is liable to succeed in the writ petition. Consequently, the respondent is directed to select the petitioner to the post of Assistant in the Combined Services of Examination 2009-2011 under BC (Muslim) (General) quota. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

13. The Commission filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.604 of 2018 against the above order. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition in C.P.No.2271 of 2017. Hence, the Commission ordered that “Thiru.S.Saibulla may be accommodated in the post of Assistant in Prison Department earmarked for BC(M)(Women) category subject to outcome of the Writ Appeal filed against the orders of the Hon’ble High Court dated 05.01.2017” and the same was communicated to the candidate vide Memo dated 14.03.2018. By that time, status quo was granted in Writ Appeal in W.A.No.604 of 2018 vide Orders dated 20.03.2018. Therefore, based on this order, physical certificate verification and counselling was not conducted for the said candidate Thiru.S.Saibulla and the same was communicated to the individual by Memo.No.6207/OTDB2/2010 dated 21.03.2018.
14. Further, it is humbly submitted that I have dueregard to the Orders of the Hon’ble Court and have no willful intention to disobey the Orders of this Hon’ble Court. The earlier affidavit submitted on 08.09.2023 was based on the positional note given by the concerned officials for the recruitment of 2009-2011 and I render my unconditional apology for lack of details in the same. It is also submitted that disciplinary action has been initiated against the concerned officials in this regard. Hence it is humbly submitted that the affidavit filed on 08.09.2023 may be treated as withdrawn.”
15. According to the Secretary, TNPSC, the eligible candidates next in rank to the last candidate admitted in the Backward Class Muslim – General category (from the overall ranking list) after first round of counselling ought to have been called for the II phase of counselling and the remaining 6 vacancies ought to have been filled up with meritorious candidates only. However, selection was continued by filling up the 6 vacancies with candidates available during the counselling session of Phase I, who were in fact ineligible for selection against the Backward

Class Muslim (BCM) – General vacancies.

4. The Secretary has further stated in para 11 of the affidavit that,the above lapse was the reason for the selection of less meritorious candidates in Backward Class Muslim (BCM) – General category.
5. In para 14 of the affidavit, the Secretary, TNPSC has further stated that, “the earlier affidavit submitted on 08.09.2023 was based on the positional note give by the concerned officials for the recruitment of 2009-2011 and I render my unconditional apology for lack of details in the same. It is also submitted that the disciplinary action has been initiated against the concerned officials in this regard”. Hence, the Secretary has submitted that the affidavit filed on 08.09.2023 may be treated as withdrawn.
6. These revelations made by the Secretary, TNPSC has made it abundantly clear that, all is not well in the concerned Selection i.e., Group – IV selection of the year 2009-2011.
7. In this case, we have dealt with only the vacancies earmarked for Backward Class Muslim alone, where initially it was the stand taken by the TNPSC that, there were only 69 vacancies earmarked for BCM, out of the 69, 8 vacancies were earmarked for Women i.e., BCM Women and 28 posts were earmarked for Destitute Widow.
8. However, now it is the stand of the TNPSC that, there are 112 vacancies for Backward Class Muslim, out of which 69 vacancies originally earmarked for BCM (General) was reduced to 67 and 8 vacancies were earmarked for BCM (Women) and 28 vacancies were earmarked for BCM (Destitute Widow), 2 for Ex-servicemen, 4 for PSTM candidates and 1 for Physically Challenged Person.
9. This revelation has further raised a question that, if the total vacancies is 112 earmarked for BCM candidates, out of which if at all any further sub-reservation has to be given for Women candidates, Destitute Women candidates, Ex-serviceman, PSTM, etc., such kind of reservations should be made only horizontally not vertically.
10. When that being so, on what basis or under what rule such a vertical reservation has been made by the TNPSC for those categories mentioned above is not known and has not been explained even in the present affidavit filed by the TNPSC, Secretary.
11. Therefore, the following position has emerged after havinggone through the present affidavit filed by the Secretary, TNPSC.
    • The reservation policy of the State has been violated in the Selection Process;
    • The constitutional mandate of reservation to various communal categories has been messed up by giving vertical reservation to various categories, but only in the name of communal categories, that is against the constitutional reservation which includes the 69% communal reservation being followed in the State of Tamil Nadu;
    • It is an admitted case on the part of the TNPSC that, Selection had been made where less meritorious candidates had been selected, for which, absolutely no reason has been given by the TNPSC;
    • When specific pointed queries repeatedly raised by this Court, a misleading affidavit had been filed earlier by the TNPSC by its Secretary, which, according to the Secretary, has occurred, because of the misleading positional note given by the concerned officials of the TNPSC against whom, even though it is claimed by the Secretary of the TNPSC that, disciplinary actions have been initiated, on what basis such officials/staff had given misleading statement and in order to cover up which lapses, such a misleading statement had been given even to the Secretary of the TNPSC by her own officials/staff are to be unearthed. Therefore, in this context who are all the officials and staff who are responsible to give such misleading information or statement to the Secretary, who in turn filed an affidavit dated 08.09.2023 in the earlier occasion, which the Secretary, TNPSC now wants to withdraw, are to be found

out.

• It is a serious lapse on the part of the very administration of the TNPSC as this very Court itself has been misled by the action on the part of the officials and staff of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which act of TNPSC is despicable. Hence this Court cannot tolerate it by merely taking it as a statement mistakenly given before this Court.
• Therefore those officials’ name are to be listed and placed before this Court by the Secretary, TNPSC and what disciplinary action had already been initiated against those officials and staff shall also be placed before this Court, based on which, the Court will take decision to take separate action for having committed perjury before this Court.

12. J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the TNPSC has made a request before this Court to give one day time to produce the relevant records before this Court for perusal.
13. Hence, such time of one day is given till tomorrow i.e., 27.09.2023 to produce the relevant records in support of the contentions that has been made atleast in the present affidavit filed by the Secretary dated 19.09.2023.
14. After verifying the records and by giving further opportunity of hearing to the TNPSC counsel by tomorrow, the Court will take further decision as to what action shall be taken, for all the violation that has been indicated herein above, against the TNPSC and its officials.
15. For the aforestated compliance, post this matter on 09.2023 as first case.

[R.S.K.J.]               [K.B.J.]

26.092023

Note :

Issue order copy today.

Sgl

R.SURESH KUMAR, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

Sgl

W.A.No.604 of 2018 and

C.M.P.No.5872 of 2018 and

Cont.P.No.2271 of 2017

26.09.2023