N THANGAVEL Vs. N CHELLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to g. O. Ms. No. 155, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 19. 9. 2006, passed by the State of Tamil Nadu . By the impugned G. O. , the State Government has decided to conduct a Special Competitive Examination in Group-IV standard through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the TNPSC') so as to absorb temporary Assistants/junior Assistants in secretariat and various Departments in the Districts who are on contract basis in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service/tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. In the light of the said decision, the State Government requested the TNPSC to conduct necessary Special Competitive Examination in Group-IV for those persons.

(2.) W. P. No. 36731 of 2006 has been filed as a Public interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as 'the PIL') by an individual who is a member of the Bar, while W. P. No. 43626 of 2006 has been filed by four unemployed graduates who while seeking for quashing of the impugned G. O. , also seek for a consequential direction to the State Government to fill up all the vacancies accrued in all the posts under the State or other authorities including the vacancies occupied by the temporary appointees by regular appointment through the TNPSC or any other recruiting agency by conducting an open competition giving equal opportunities to all the qualified citizens. Though the said W. P. No. 43626 of 2006 was filed by those four individuals independently, since the former case (W. P. No. 36731 of 2006) was entertained as a PIL, W. P. No. 43626 of 2006 was tagged on and posted together for disposal.

(3.) At the outset, we wish to state that the Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner in W. P. No. 36731 of 2006 cannot be entertained, inasmuch as it is by now well settled that a PIL cannot be entertained in respect of service matters, as has been categorically held by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273 (Dr. Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra kumar Mishra) and 2005 (1) SCC 590 (Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of maharashtra ). The Supreme Court in the latter decision (2005 (1) SCC 590) has stated the legal position as under in paragraph 16: