SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

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.] However, Mr.G.Hema, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant TNPSC made a fervent request before this Court to give a shorter accommodation as a last chance to come out with clear facts by filing a further affidavit by the Secretary, TNPSC with substantiated documents to put the facts straight. Considering the said plea made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TNPSC, a week’s time is given to file affidavit with proper facts on the issue raised in this lis especially in the context of query that we have raised in 21.08.2023 order as well as this order. Such affidavit with supporting documents shall be filed by the Secretary, TNPSC on 19.09.2023, failing which, the Secretary, TNPSC shall appear before this Court to give explanation as to why action shall not be taken against her for either having suppressed the material facts before this Court or having given a misleading reply to the pointed query raised by this Court. Post the matter on 19.09.2023 as a first case. [R.S.K.J.]               [K.B.J.]    08.092023 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 08.09.2023

by · Published · Updated

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.]

In our order dated 21.08.2023, we raised certain pointed queries. In order to have a ready reference, the relevant portion of our order dated

21.08.2023 are reproduced hereunder:

“3. Out of the 69 posts, if the 8 posts earmarked for women and the 28 posts earmarked for destitute women are reduced, the remaining posts will be 33. Therefore for the 33 posts i.e., for BCM (G) both sex can compete, where, according to TNPSC, the cut off mark was 223.50, the contesting respondent secured 223.50.

  1. Whereas in the following posts, candidates who secured less than 223.50 were selected.
  • Assistant in the Prison Department in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, a woman candidate who secured 220.50 has been selected.
  • Like that, for the post of Assistant in the Police

Department in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, a woman candidate who secured 220.50 has been selected.

  • Also, a woman candidate who secured 222.00 has been selected in the post of Assistant in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department.
  • Like that, for the post of Assistant in Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, a woman candidate who also secured 223.50 with a date of birth 15.11.1988 has been selected.
  1. Whereas the contesting respondent secured 223.50 and his date of birth is 09.05.1975, therefore atleast in respect of these 4 candidates who secured lessor marks had been selected under the BCM (G) category, for which, both women and men can compete, hence the selection in respect of these four candidates, certainly it is in violation of the Selection Procedure as many number of candidates like the contesting respondent who secured 223.50 marks were in the queue or in the waiting list for want of vacancy or want of post.”
  2. After having recorded the same, we raised the pointed query to the following effect:

“9. Therefore, on what basis atleast the 4 candidates mentioned above have been selected despite the candidates who secured higher marks in the same category were available including the contesting respondent and this has to be explained by the TNPSC. An explanatory affidavit to that effect with substantiating documents shall be filed by the Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission not by any other lower level official of the TNPSC before this Court during the next hearing date, for such compliance post the matter on 30.08.2023.

  1. In response to the same, the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission has filed an affidavit dated 07th September, 2023.

  1. We have gone through the said affidavit where absolutely there has been no answer to our query, especially the pointed query raised by our order dated 21.08.2023.
  2. Insofar as the 4 candidates mentioned in our order, as to how selections were given to those 4 candidates who are less meritorious than number of candidates including the contesting respondent was asked. For which the answer of the Secretary, TNPSC reads thus:

“3. ….

iii.      Four women candidate’s register number mentioned

in the court order, were admitted to Oral Test in the ratio of 1:2 based on rule of reservation and as per merit, and their Register numbers were also published in publication list calling the candidates for Oral Test. But the above four candidates were not selected for Oral Test Posts. However, after reorganizing Non-OT Rank, they were called for Counselling for Non-OT posts, and their Register Numbers were published vide List dated 20.11.2012 at the ratio of 1:1.5.”

  1. It is the further answer given by the TNPSC Secretary that, the cut-off mark for admission to 1st phase of counselling conducted for NonOral Test posts under BCM(G) and BCM(W) categories were as follows:
Category Common post Assistant in Finance Department, Secretariat
BCM-General 223.50/Degree/10.05.1973 223.50/Degree/29.06.1988
BCM-Women 214.50/Degree/30.11.1987 —–
  1. After having given this, the Secretary, TNPSC has further stated that, in the 1st counselling itself, the entire vacancy have been exhausted, therefore there was no chance for any other candidates for seeking selection for the Non-Oral Test post, who got lesser mark than 223.50 in

BCM(G) and 214.50 in BCM(W).

  1. Insofar as the BCM(G) is concerned, it is the case of the TNPSC that, the cut-off mark was 223.50 with degree qualification, and the last person has been selected with the cut-off mark 223.50 and his date of birth is 10.05.1973, whereas, the contesting respondent’s date of birth is 09.05.1975, therefore even though he secured 223.50 marks, he was not called for counselling or not selected.
  2. However, the Secretary, TNPSC in her reply affidavit has conveniently omitted to give reply or answer to the pointed queries raised by our order dated 21.08.2023 as to how atleast the 4 candidates mentioned herein above, who admittedly secured lesser marks i.e. lesser than 223.50 marks, were selected under BCM(G) category.
  3. That apart, when we worked out based on the Selection List produced before this Court, even though only 8 vacancies were earmarked for BCM(W), beyond 8 candidates several woman candidates belongs to BCM(W) were selected, therefore such selection could have been made only under BCM(G).
  4. But none of those candidates numbering nearly about 15 had secured higher marks than the contesting respondent i.e., either 223.50 or above. Despite that lesser marks they secured those woman candidates also have been selected under BCM(G) according to the Selection List which were produced before this Court.
  5. How this kind of selection could be made has not at all been explained by the Secretary, TNPSC in the affidavit filed by her.
  6. Therefore, after having analysed all these aspects, we are of the view that, either certain facts were attempted to be concealed before this Court or by giving such vague reply by way of affidavit, the TNPSC wanted to cover up certain violations in the particular selection especially in the context of vacancies earmarked for Backward Class Muslim

(General) as well as Backward Class Muslim (Women)

  1. It is a settled proposition of law that, if any material facts are concealed or suppressed before the Court of law that would amount to interference in dispensation of justice of this Court and such kind of attitude can even be construed as a perjury committed on the Court.

Therefore, certainly actions can be taken against such person or official who either suppressed the material fact or by giving vague reply, despite the pointed query raised by the Court, to cover up the misdeeds if any.

  1. However, Mr.G.Hema, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant TNPSC made a fervent request before this Court to give a shorter accommodation as a last chance to come out with clear facts by filing a further affidavit by the Secretary, TNPSC with substantiated documents to put the facts straight.
  2. Considering the said plea made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TNPSC, a week’s time is given to file affidavit with proper facts on the issue raised in this lis especially in the context of query that we have raised in 21.08.2023 order as well as this order. Such affidavit with supporting documents shall be filed by the Secretary, TNPSC on 19.09.2023, failing which, the Secretary, TNPSC shall appear before this Court to give explanation as to why action shall not be taken against her for either having suppressed the material facts before this Court or having given a misleading reply to the pointed query raised by this Court.
  3. Post the matter on 19.09.2023 as a first case.

[R.S.K.J.]               [K.B.J.]

08.092023

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

08.09.2023

You may also like...