M PRADEEPA; K MARIMUTHU Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT; COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT; SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.MD.No.10783 of 2015/Mrs.M.Pradeepa challenges the impugned Memorandum issued by the 3rd respondent/Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'TNPSC'), whereby, she was informed that the result of the subsequent recruitment for the post of Executive Officer (in short, 'EO') Grade-I in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Subordinate Service included in Group-VIIA Services for the year 2011-2014 has been finalized on 17.09.2014 by means of counselling mode and hence, the Reserve List, dated 01.08.2014, for the said post pertaining to 2009-2011 got lapsed. Since the petitioner, who is at Serial No.1 against MBC/DC-W(PSTM) Category in the Reserve List, dated 01.08.2014, issued by the TNPSC, was denied appointment to the post of Executive Officer, Grade-I in the HR& CE Subordinate Services on the ground that the Reserve List for the relevant period stood lapsed, she is before this Court.

(2.) Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. MD. No.10783 of 2015, would submit that the petitioner, who is a Master Degree Holder in Law, responded to a Notification, dated 02.04.2012, issued by the TNPSC to fill up 14 vacancies of EO Grade-I in the HR&CE Administration Department for Group-VII A Services relating to 2009-10 & 2010-11, by applying for the said post. After attending the written examination with Registration No.01002737, she secured 387 marks and subsequently, in the oral test conducted by the TNPSC vide proceedings, dated 11.07.2014 in Memorandum No.3032/OTD-B4/2011, she was awarded 42 marks, thus, the Total Mark secured by her was 387+42 = 429. When the TNPSC issued the list of selected candidates, her name appeared in the 2nd list and, as per the proceedings of the TNPSC, dated 01.08.2014, she was informed that she was not selected for appointment, however, her name was included in the Reserve List at Serial No.1 against MBC/DC-W(PSTM) Category. Pausing here, learned counsel for the petitioner would highlight that, in the said proceedings of the TNPSC, dated 01.08.2014, the petitioner was duly informed that the Reserve List would be in force until the drawl of next selection list for the said post by the TNPSC. Further, it was also made clear therein that the Reserve List would be taken into consideration in favour of the petitioner against the vacancies caused due to - i)Non-joining of selected candidates; ii)Selected candidates who joined duty but left thereafter; and, iii)Cancellation of provisional selection of the selected candidate for any reason. According to the learned counsel, as per the aforesaid proceedings, it goes without saying that if any selected candidate fails to join duty, the respondents should resort to the Reserve List. While so, one Selvi.Vidya, a selected candidate from MBC-DC-W(PSTM) Category, did not join duty, whereupon, the petitioner herein, who belongs to the very same Category and already placed by the TNPSC at Serial No.1 in the Reserve List, submitted a series of representations, dated 03.02.2015, 02.04.2015 and 20.05.2015, requesting both the TNPSC and the HR&CE Department to operate the Reserve List in her favour on the ground that the said Vidya, who was selected under the same Category, failed to join duty as she has already got a comfortable Government Job. Even six months after the said Vidya not reporting for/joining duty, without taking any step to operate the Reserve List, by citing a vague reason that the result of the subsequent recruitment for the said post for the years 2012-2014 was finalised by calling the candidates for counselling on 17.09.2014 itself to fill up vacancies, now, the respondents unjustly declared that the Reserve List got lapsed.

(3.) Learned counsel, by referring to a decision rendered by this Court on 25.07.2008 in WP.MD.No.19612 of 2007 (Dr.D.Karal Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary & Others), would submit that, in the said case, faced with a similar issue, this Court had ruled that when candidates are placed in the Reserve/Waiting List, as per the statutory proviso to Rule 10(a)(i) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, the reserve list candidates have a right to get appointed, if the selected candidates failed to join duty in time by one reason or the other. It was further ruled that the right of the Reserve List candidates gets crystallized the moment the last date for reporting to duty of the selected candidates are over and the reserve list candidates are deemed to be selected in the resultant vacancies by operation of law and as such, they will get an indefeasible right for their appointment.