S BHARATHI Vs. TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed initially, O. A. No. 4514/2000 on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and re-numbered as Writ petition No. 32147 of 2005.

(2.) THE learned Senior Counsel has contended that Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has called for application for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in advertisement No. 28/98 and since the petitioner possesses the required qualifications, she had applied for the said post. In the said advertisement, in paragrah 4 it is stated that, 30% of vacancies had been reserved for women candidates who possess the prescribed qualification and preference would be given to destitute widows. In the written examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service commission, the petitioner had secured 275. 94 marks. Since the respondents had followed an indifferent method in filling up the vacancies, the petitioner was not selected even though she secured 275. 94 marks, whereas, the cut off marks for General Category of women was fixed only at 195. 25. According to the learned Senior Counsel, entire 350 vacancies had been filled up by appointing destitute widows, since cut off marks prescribed for the destitute widows was only 120, whereas for the women, who appeared under the General women quota, the cut off marks prescribed was 311. 13. THE last candidate who was appointed under the category "destitute widow" had secured above 195. 24 but below 275. 94. Since a lower cut off marks was prescribed for the destitute widows, all the vacancies earmarked for women had been filled up only by destitute widows and not even one vacancy was filled by a woman candidate who had applied under the "general women quota". Hence, according to the learned Senior Counsel, entire selection process with regard to the women candidate has to be set aside, as prima facie that is illegal.

(3.) IN my opinion, after calling for application from the women under the regular women quota as well as from the destitute widows, filling up the entire vacancies by one group is illegal and also a total preferential treatment has been given to one category. Hence, in my opinion atleast one vacancy which has been reserved at the time of appointment can be allowed to the woman who had applied under the General Women quota. Since the petitioner alone has come to this Court challenging the process, she can be accommodated in the said vacancy which will not cause any hardship to the candidates who had already been selected and joined the said posts.