V.Diwakar Dass v. The Commissioner Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 20.10.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P. No.7568 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 V.Diwakar Dass .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Agriculture Ezhilagam, Chennai-5.

2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, New Building, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar, Chennai-3.

.. Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to publish the marks for the petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 28.10.2012 for selection to the post of Agricultural Officer (Extension) in pursuant to the Notification dt.30.08.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent and to publish he cut off marks for petitioner category to be called for Oral Test, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court and consequently direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Agricultural Officer (Extension) based on the merits of selection. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents:Mr.K.Balamurugan, GA for R1.

Ms.CNG.Niraimathi, SC for TNPSC - R2.

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to publish the marks for the written examination held on 28.10.2012, for which the petitioner also appeared for the post of Agricultural Officer (Extension).

3.Ms.CNG.Niraimathi, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner has claimed in his application that he belongs to SC (Adi-Andhra) and availed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

fees exemption. The petitioner in his application further stated that his father's place of birth is other than "Tamil Nadu" and hence he was considered under the category of "others" Since fees exemption is not applicable to "others", his application was summarily rejected and hence the petitioner was not considered for selection to the post of Agricultural Officer (Extension). Consequently, the marks obtained by the petitioner was not published.

4.In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent which was also affirmed in the counter affidavit, the matter requires no further adjudication. The submission of the second respondent is also not seriously controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar tsh To 1.The Commissioner of Agriculture Ezhilagam, Chennai-5.

2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, New Building, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar, Chennai-3.

+ 1 cc to M/s. G. Sankaran, Advocate Sr.60440 + 1 cc to Government Pleader SR.60152 W.P.No.7568 of 2013.

RK(CO) Eu 21.11.16 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/