A RAJAPANDIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) IN August, 2005, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short 'the Commission') invited applications in respect of appointments to the post of 'Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Direct Recruitment) in the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Services for the year 2005-06. The total number of vacancies specified in the notification was 250. Clause 6 of the Notification prescribed the following qualifications:". 6. QUALIFICATION:Candidate should possess the following or its equivalent qualification on the date of the Notification viz. 05-08-2005:B.V.Sc. Degree of any University or INstitution recognised by the University Grants Commission for the purpose of its grant andMust be a Registered Practitioner within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Registration of Veterinary Practitioners Act 1957 (Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1957)... ... ..."Clause 12 of the Notification enumerated the list of enclosures to be sent along with the application. It was further informed that the selection will be made in two successive stages, viz. written examination and oral test in the shape of an interview. The total marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and oral test will be taken together for making the final selection subject to the rule of reservation. The last date for submission of the filled up application was fixed as 9th September, 2005 and the date of written examination was fixed as 20th November, 2005.

(3.) IT is seen from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission that 448 applications were rejected for the reasons viz. 'OMR Application not signed', 'Declaration Column not signed', 'Photo Identity not signed', 'Registration Certificate of Veterinary Council not produced', 'No evidence of date of birth' etc. In so far as the present petitions are concerned, as per the information furnished by the Commission, 68 applications were rejected on the grounds of not signing the OMR Application and/or not signing the Declaration Column or not signing Photo Identity, and the rest of 86 applications were rejected on the ground of non-production of Veterinary Council Registration Certificate.