M KARTHIK Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the petitioners were selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, a Group-I B service post and appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.80, Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and Information (R.E.2.2) Department dated 26.2.2011. The common grievance of the petitioners shows that when the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the second respondent herein issued a notification/advertisement dated 20.12.2009 for filling up of 25 Group I B service post of Assistant Commissioner by direct recruitment for the years 2005-06 and 2008-09 respectively, all of them, being eligible for the said post, applied for, participated in the written examination and successfully passed the written examination. Therefore, they were called for the oral test and again after appearing in the oral test, they were declared successful. Thereafter, based on the merit list, the second respondent published a selection list on 22.10.2010 for 24 vacancies out of 25 vacancies and a reserve list was also published based on communal roster. When the second respondentTamil Nadu Public Service Commission had published the selection list based on the marks obtained in the written as well as oral examination by following the communal roster, the first respondent issued the orders of appointment in G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 26.2.2011 and also the orders of posting in G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 07.07.2011. In the said orders of appointment and posting, the petitioners names figured in the selection list issued by the second respondent. After a lapse of three years, the first respondent issued a seniority list for directly recruited candidates of the year 2005-06 and 2008-09 on the basis of communal roster, in which Mr.M.Karthik figured in Serial No.9. Therefore his grievance is when his original seniority in the appointment order being No.5, the same should be followed for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Commissioner. Similarly, the case of Mr.S.Mohanasundaram also shows that when he was found in Serial No.6 in the order of appointment, he cannot be pushed down to 11th turn in the seniority list prepared by the first respondent. Similarly, the case of Mr.M.Kannadasan also shows that when he was shown at Serial No.8 in the order of appointment, he cannot be pushed down to 10th turn in the subsequent seniority list prepared by the first respondent dated 8.4.2014 on the basis of the communal roster.

(2.) Arguing the case on behalf of all the petitioners, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel submitted that when all the petitioners participated in the written examination for Group I B service post of Assistant Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and selected based on the marks obtained in the written and oral examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, after the merit list dated 31.1.2011 published by the second respondent, the first respondent issued orders of appointment in G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 26.2.2011 and after successful completion of training, one more G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 7.7.2011 was issued for postings. In the said orders of appointment and posting, the names of the petitioners, namely, Mr.M.Karthik was shown in Serial No.5, Mr.S.Mohanasundaram was shown in Serial No.6, Mr.M.Kannadasan was shown in Serial No.8, Mr.S.Gnanasekaran was shown in Serial No.9, Mr.V.Kumaresan was shown in Serial No.10, Mr.S.Sivaramkumar was shown in Serial No.11, Mr.J.Bharanidaran was shown in Serial No.12, Mr.P.Ramesh was shown in Serial No.14 and Mr.V.Ananth was shown in Serial No.13. Now after a lapse of three years, the first respondent has disturbed the merit list prepared by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and issued another seniority list re-allotting the seniority rankings, namely, Mr.M.Karthik, who was ranked 5 th in the merit list, has been pushed down to 9 th rank; Mr.S.Mohanasundaram, who was ranked 6 th in the merit list, has been pushed down to 11th rank; Mr.M.Kannadasan, who was ranked 8 th in the merit list, has been pushed down to 10th rank, etc. In the guise of applying rule of reservation, the first respondent, by the impugned letter dated 8.4.2014, cannot re-fix the seniority on the basis of the communal roster and cannot alter the seniority of the petitioners, as per rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which is unsustainable in law.

(3.) Continuing his arguments, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan submitted that when the selection of Assistant Commissioner was made by the second respondent in the year 2000, it was based on the marks obtained in the written and oral examinations. Based on the selection list prepared by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in 2000, the seniority of the selected candidates was fixed and followed as on today. While so, the first respondent, by the impugned letter, has wrongly altered the seniority of the petitioners, contrary to the merit list prepared by the second respondent. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Adding further, it was stated that when the communal reservation is applicable only to appointment and the same will have no say in the matters relating to fixation of seniority, as per rule 35(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the seniority should be reckoned only on the basis of the ranking list published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and not otherwise. It is for this reason, he pleaded, based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the examination, when the second respondent had furnished the list, any alteration of seniority on the basis of communal roster subsequently by the Government is clearly violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.