S MOORTHY Vs. R SIVANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed against the common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.Nos.7893 of 1999 and 17 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to select and appoint the applicants before the Tribunal.

(2.) BRIEF facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the appeals, leading to filing of the above O.As are: a notification was published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission), inviting applications for the recruitment to the post of Group I Services for 84 vacancies for five different categories in January, 1998 in two successive stages, preliminary examination and the main examination, consisting of qualifying examination and oral test and final selection on the basis of marks obtained at the main written examination and oral test subject to the rule of reservation. A preliminary examination was conducted on 7.6.1998. 840 candidates were provisionally admitted for written examination to be held in December, 1998 and January, 1999. Petitioners were informed on 7.10.1998 that they were provisionally admitted to the main examination on the basis of results in the preliminary examination. The written examination consisted of six papers including General Tamil or English, totaling 1200 marks followed by an interview for 250 marks on 19.12.1998 and 10.1.1999. It is alleged that the applicants in O.A.Nos.7389 of 1999 and 17 of 2000 respectively secured 1032.50 and 1186.50 marks in the written examination and were also called for interview on 25.11.1999 and 4.12.1999 as per the notification published dated 23.10.1999.

(3.) MR.N.R.Chandran, learned senior counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.11730 and 11731 of 2000, while reiterating the submissions of the Additional Solicitor General, contended that for no fault of theirs, the 139 candidates should not be penalised that the principle of equity should be applied. They had only some identification marks in reply to the letters as contained in the questions and due to the mistaken assumption, the staff of the evaluation wing had invalidated their papers. He submitted that on merit, eligible candidates had been selected for the oral test and if the petitioners secured marks over and above the applicants in the O.As., they would get a chance for appointment on merit and if the applicants secured more marks, they would get the appointment and merit alone prevailed. Hence, when the merit alone would prevail, the denial of chance to the petitioners, was nothing but illegal. The petitioners being the affected parties were not made respondents before the Tribunal and they were not heard before passing the order against them. He contended that the decision to include 139 candidates was based on fair play and principles of natural justice and it could not be termed to be a mala fide action. He submitted that the Supreme Court had time and again held that the Court should not interfere in the matter of selection process by the competent authority unless it was challenged by the aggrieved person on the ground of mala fide and arbitrary. He submitted that though the applicants did not challenge the fresh notification dated 6.11.1999 and did not pray for setting aside the revalidation, the Tribunal had gone a step further and passed orders adverse to the interest of the writ petitioners, which was agitated only by two persons without impleading them and others as parties. Hence, he prayed for the setting aside of the order of the Tribunal. He relied on the decisions in Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 331, Ishwar Singh