PADMAVATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unique matter in view of the unusual factual situation. A notification for filling up six vacancies in the post of Inspector of Fisheries was issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short "the Commission"). The selection was to be on the basis of the written examination and oral interview. Out of the six posts, one post was meant for the Scheduled Caste candidates; one post was meant for the Most Backward Class and Denotified Communities; two posts were for the Backward Class candidates, including one post reserved for the women amongst them and two posts were for open competition, one post having been reserved for women.

(2.) AFTER the interviews were over, the following factual position was obtained on the basis of merits; " 1. Pradeepkumar 198.0 O.C. " 2. Jude Armstrong 196.0 M.B.C. " 3. Panchayatha Rana 195.0 M.B.C. " 4. Sharmila 188.0 B.C.5.N.M.Velmurugan 172.5 B.C. " 6. Padmavathi 171.0 O.C. " 7. Not relevant " 8. not relevant 14.Renuka 142.) S.C. 15.not relevant 16.Prabhavati 138.0 B.C. 17.not relevant 18.not relevant

(3.) THE learned counsel. however, pointed out that Padmavathi, petitioner herein, has not only joined but passed all the Departmental examination and has been regularised also. Learned Counsel says that it is not for her fault that she has now lost a further chance to appear and compete for the Government posts because, by now, she must have become over-aged for Government posts. She has not had any hand in the selection being bestowed upon her by the Commission. We agree. Under circumstances, we can only recommend that she should make a representation to the Government pointing out the unique set of facts for redressal which could be given, if necessary, by creating a supernumerary post. THE representation shall be made as early as possible and shall be decided upon within two months from its receipt by the Government.