K ARUMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, in substance, the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Judicial magistrate I Class on the basis of inclusion of their names in the reserve list drawn and notified by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 30. 7. 1995, on regular basis.

(2.) THE petitioners state, they are practising advocates at various places in the State of Tamil Nadu . THE Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, T. N. P. S. C.) issued a notification inviting the applications from the members of the Bar for direct recruitment and appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division)/judicial magistrate First Class, in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. THE petitioners possess the qualifications prescribed for the aforesaid post, and they made applications to the T. N. P. S. C. in the prescribed forms paying necessary fees as required. THEy were called for an oral interview by the commission. THEy fared well in the interview.

(3.) UNDER the given situation, the petitioners having no other alternative and efficacious remedy, have filed the writ petitions seeking the reliefs as stated above, raising the grounds viz. , (i) on the basis of the performance of the petitioners in the interview, the names of the petitioners were included in the reserve list in the Notification issued by the T. N. P. S. C. stating that the said reserve list would be valid till the next select list is drawn, and that no select list had been drawn till they filed the writ petitions. Hence having regard to the vacancies existed in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), the petitioners should have been appointed (ii) the T. N. P. S. C. had notified a list of selected candidates for appointment as A. P. Ps. and Civil Surgeons - containing a reserve list as in the case on hand the State Government after appointing the candidates included in the select list proceeded to fill up the further vacancies from the reserve list notified by the Service Commission there is no reason or justification for the respondents to adopt a different standard in the case of the petitioners (iii) it is not open to the respondents to deny the rights of the petitioners to be appointed to the existing vacancies on any ground, particularly having regard to the fact that the notification drawn by the Commission has specifically laid down that the reserve list will be valid till the next select list is drawn in the circumstances, failure of the respondents not appointing the petitioners to the existing vacancies is wholly irregular and bad in law (iv) even assuming, without admitting that the candidates including the petitioners who were included in the reserve list are not entitled to be appointed on regular basis in the existing vacancies, they were eligible to be appointed at least on a temporary basis as per Rule 11 of the rules it appears this Court informed the Government that there are few vacancies in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and had requested the government to take steps to fill up those vacancies, but the Government has failed to fill up those vacancies (v) the T. N. P. S. C. in response to the belated action taken by the Government issued a memorandum on 2. 8. 1995 to the Government sponsoring the names of the candidates found included in the reserve list including the petitioners for temporary appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) even the petitioners were informed by memorandum dated 21. 8. 1996 to that effect even thereafter no action was taken to appoint the petitioners on temporary basis. Hence the inaction on the part of the government in this regard constitutes failure to exercise its jurisdiction on the part of the Government and (vi) the petitioners state that alternatively, based on the memorandum issued by the T. N. P. S. C. pursuant to the request of this Court, the Government is obliged to appoint the petitioners to the post at least on a temporary basis which would enable the petitioners to gain experience and failure on the part of the Government in this regard is against public interest.