P KAMALAKANNAN; M SHABBIR AHAMED; P S KAVITHA; S SIVASAKTHI KUMAR; R RAMESWARI; N SMITHA; T KAVITHA; A SENTHI KUMAR; T MARIASINGAM; V AKALYA SUBRAMANIAN; M SURESH KUMAR; A PRAVIN KUMAR; S RAMYA DEVI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU; SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT/MEMBER SECRETARY; DIRECTOR, MEDICAL SERVICES RECRUITMENT BOARD; DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION; DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL & RURAL HEALTH SERVICES; M ARULMOZHI; ANITHA VALENTINA;

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, after successfully completing their BDS Course, got selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissioner (TNPSC) for the post of Assistant Surgeon (Dental) under the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services. It is further stated that they have been serving as Assistant Surgeons (Dental) in various rural and hilly areas for a period of 3 to 5 years under the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services. Upon their selection for Post Graduation (MDS) through TNPG entrance examination on the basis of their merit, they are now studying their final year and some of them, second year of MDS course in Tamil Nadu Government Dental Hospital, Chennai, and now, they are in line to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor/Tutor in the Directorate of Medical Education. Whileso, the respondents 2 and 3 issued notification No.01/03, dated 31.03.2013 calling upon the eligible candidates to participate in the selection process to fill up various posts of Medical Officers through direct recruitment, and that the selection will be mainly on the candidates, who are willing to serve in the rural service for a period of five years and to that effect, the selected candidates to the post of Post Graduate (Dental) (Speciality) category, have to give an undertaking to serve in rural areas, before the accommodation to any other departments. However, it is contended, the respondents 2 and 3, contrary to their own notification and undertaking, are taking steps to post them in the post of Assistant Professor/Tutor in the Directorate of Medical Education, without the directly recruited candidates undergoing the mandatory rural service of five years as per the notification. At this junctures, the petitioners sent their representation objecting to appoint any candidate selected under the Post Graduate (Dental) (Speciality) category, directly to the post of Assistant Professors/Tutors without doing rural service as per the notification. Therefore, when the notification specifically prescribes the mode of selection and nature of employment and when the selected candidates have to mandatory serve in the specific department, the respondents cannot accommodate the selected candidates in the fourth respondent/Directorate of Medical Education, to their own whims and fancies, especially when they are ineligible and barred from such appointment. Had the selected candidates accommodated in the post of Assistant Professors/tutors contrary to the notification, then the entire vacancies will get filled up and thereafter, the petitioners will have to wait for the vacancies to be appointed in the said post. Therefore, he contended, the petitioners having been put in 7 years of service, would be losing their seniority to the ineligible candidates throughout their carrier apart from losing the promotion, inasmuch, as per the Dental Council Regulations, only the date of getting appointed in the Directorate of Medical Education will be counted for seniority. He further stated that he is not pressing the prayer with regard to the petitioners 1 to 8, since they have been selected and posted as Assistant Professor.

(2.) In support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgement of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., v. J.Ranjith, 2012 5 CTC 577 to say that when selection is made on the basis of prescribed procedure made known to the candidates earlier, Corporation is not entitled to make deviation at later point of time. By citing so the above said ratio, it is contended that having issued notification with a clear condition, it is not open to the respondent to make a deviation, therefore, the mandatory condition mentioned in the notification should followed strictly.

(3.) He has also relied upon yet another judgement of this Court in the case of Dr.M.Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2006 3 CTC 449 for a proposition that the condition mentioned in the notification as well as Information Brochure are not only mandatory but also binding on candidates as well as State Government / TNPSC, inasmuch as the prospectus is binding on candidates as well as State including machinery appointed by State for identifying candidates for selection and admission and that the Information Brochure have force of Law, therefore, it has to be strictly complied with. No modification/relaxation can be made by Court and application filed in violation of instructions cannot be entertained. By citing the above said ratio, he contended, after issuance of notification, the respondents cannot violate the conditions mentioned in the notification.