Dr.D.Ushanandini v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP Nos.1861 of 2024, 12591,12595 & 12607 of 2025 and WMP Nos.1935, 1937 & 2607 of 2024, and WMP Nos.14171, 14172, 14181, 14182, 14193, 14195 & 14196 of 2025
1. Dr.D.Ushanandini 2.Dr.N.Poongodi 3.Dr.A.Mary Nirmala Jospephine 4.Dr.M.Deivanai Petitioners in W.P No.1861 of 2024 Dr.S.Vinothkumar Petitioner in W.P No.12591 of 2025 Dr.R.Thirupathi Petitioner in W.P No.12595 of 2025 Dr.R.Kumaresan Petitioner in W.P No.12607 of 2025 Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying And Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director The Office of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, No.571, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
3.The Secretary TNPSC, Flower Bazaar Road, Parrys, Chennai-104.
Respondents in all WP's
PRAYER in W.P No.1861 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider the claim of the petitioners for allowing them to continue in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and to absorb the petitioners for the post of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and to pass appropriate orders within the time period to be fixed by this Court.
PRAYER in WP No. 12607 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd Respondent by his proceeding in Na.Ka. No 20100/ M2 / 2024 dated 11.03.2025 insofar as the petitioner is concerned in SI. No 93 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to issue an appointment order as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. PRAYER in WP No. 12591 of 2025 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent by his proceeding in Na.Ka. No.20100/ M2/ 2024 dated 11.03.2025 insofar as the petitioner is concerned in Sl. No.68 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to issue an appointment order as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. PRAYER in WP No. 12595 of 2025:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent by his proceeding in Na.Ka. No.20100/ M2/ 2024 dated 11.03.2025 insofar as the petitioner is concerned in Sl. No.21 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to issue an appointment order as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. In all Writ Petitions For Petitioner(s):
Mr.L.Chandrakumar for Mr.D.Senthilkumar For Respondents:
Mr.P.Balathandayutham Special Government Pleader for R1 And R2 Mr.R.Baranidharan for R3
COMMON ORDER These four writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 11.03.2025 and consequently seeking a direction to the respondents to issue appointment orders as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons to all the petitioners.
2.Since the facts involved in the present writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by way of a common order.
3.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) under State and Subordinate Service Rules, in the year 2012 as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, vide G.O Ms.137 dated 14.11.2011, Animal Husbandry. Initially, the period of appointment was for one year, and the same was subsequently extended from time to time. Even after completion of more than ten years of service, the respondents neither conduced a regular process nor replaced the petitioners with regular appointees through the TNPSC. In the subsequent year, 2013, the recruitment process through TNPSC was continued; however, at the instance of certain appointees appointed under 10(a)(i), the said recruitment process was kept in abeyance. There was another development in which the Government itself came forward with a proposal to conduct a special test for appointees under 10(a)(i). Inter alia, the special test for the
petitioners were challenged by similarly qualified persons who had not obtained employment, and the writ petition was allowed in their favour, thereby setting aside the special test to be conducted by the respondents and the same was landed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4351 & 4353-4354 of 2016 by the petitioners as well as the State. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Apex Court, by order on 07.04.2022, directed the respondents to provide weight-age marks towards weight-age of experience in the selection process. The weight-age will consist of marks at the rate of 5 marks for every year, which is subject to maximum of 50 marks. As far as the scheme of recruitment process is concerned, the selection is made on the basis of written examination which consists of a total of 500 marks, split up into two papers, i.
e Part-I and Part-II, in one paper, the maximum mark is 300 and for the second paper, the maximum mark is 200. The recruitment procedure, according to one Mr.Jaideep Gupta, also entails a viva voce for which the maximum marks is 70 and the total marks on the basis of which selection is to be made is 570 marks. Pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court, the petitioners participated in the selection process. However, the impugned results were published, in which wherein the petitioners were not selected. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 4.
by issuing a direction to the respondents to allot 5 marks for each year subject to a maximum 50 marks, the said 50 marks were not reflected in the impugned results. Hence, he prayed for appropriate orders. 5.However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that none of the petitioners/candidates came under the zone of consideration, as the maximum marks obtained by them were 369.25, 362.25, 368.75, 372.93 respectively. Therefore, they were not within the zonal consideration and no selection was made in favour their favour. Subsequently, the petitioners' services were extended by appointing candidates who had participated in the selection process and who had obtained the prescribed cut off marks in accordance with the rules of reservation. Therefore, the grievance expressed by the petitioners is misconceived. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either and perused the materials available on record.
7. The facts of the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners are 10(a)(i) appointees appointed as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the year 2012. It is equally undisputed fact that the respondents had decided to conduct a special test for the petitioners, and the same was successfully
challenged by fresh candidates who were eagerly awaiting appointment. The matter was ultimately settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court by issuing a direction to the respondents to grant weight-age marks to the petitioners at the rate of 5 marks for each year of service, subject to a maximum of 50 marks. Pursuant to which, the petitioners participated in the selection process and secured the marks. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the weight-age marks provided by the 3rd respondent were not reflected in the results. Therefore, the present writ petitions have been filed. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent/TNPSC, indicating the marks secured by the petitioners in Part-I and Part-II, as well as the weight-age marks. The details of the marks obtained by the petitioners and the weight-age marks provided by the 3rd respondent are as follows:
S.
No.
Petitioner's Name Register No.
Paper-I Paper-2, Part-B Weight-age of marks for the experience Total (Excluding Part-A of Paper II) Dr.D.Ushanandihini 2501001273 Dr.N.Poongodi 0101001222 Dr.A.Mary Nirmala Josephine 0101001212 175.50 321.50 Dr.M.Deivanai 2601001063 49.93 330.93 S.
No.
Petitioner's Name Register No.
Paper-I Paper-2, Part-B Weight-age of marks for the experience Total (Excluding Part-A of Paper II) Dr.S.Vinothkumar 2701001029 154.50 318.50 Dr.R.Kumaresan 2501001205 145.50 291.50 Dr.R.Thirupathi 0101001210 16550 311.00
The total marks obtained by the respective candidates are 369.25, 362.25, 368.75, 372.93. Whereas, the cut off marks for the BC(OBCM) category is 373.25. However, all the petitioners have secured less than the cut off marks in the BC (OBCM) category. In view of the above, the grievance expressed by all the petitioners is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as sought for by them.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court may permit the petitioners to make a representation seeking age relaxation in order to participate in the next selection process. 9.In view of the above observations, all the four writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to make a representation seeking age relaxation to participate in the next selection process. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02-01-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes uma
To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying And Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director The Office of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, No.571, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
3.The Secretary TNPSC, Flower Bazaar Road, Parrys, Chennai-104.
M.DHANDAPANI J.
uma WP Nos.1861 of 2024 and 12607 of 2025 & 12591 & 12595 of 2025 WMP Nos. 1935, 1937 & 2607 of 2024,WMP Nos.14171, 14172, 14181, 14182, 14193, 14195, 14196 of 2025 02-01-2026