V.Selvendran v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and CMP(MD)No.12686 of 2022 1.V.Selvendran 2.Dr.K.Ragu 3.Dr.P.Chinnamaruthupandy 4.Dr.A.P.R.Babuji 5.Dr.K.Selvam 6.Dr.Vijayabaskar 7.Dr.P.Karunakaran 8.Dr.N.Murugarajan 9.Dr.J.Sudhakar, 10.Dr.M.Chinnaduraipandian 11.Dr.K.Mariappa : Appellants Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai.
1/9
3.The Commissioner, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Nandanam, Chennai - 9.
4.The Secretary to the Government, Human Resources Management Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9.
5.Dr.G.Siyamsundar 6.Dr.S.Balamurugan 7.Dr.R.Navaneethakannan 8.Dr.g.Mohankumar 9.S.Rajamohan Paramasivam 10.Dr.G.Kameshkannan 11.Dr.M.Suresh 12.Dr.S.Arun 13.Dr.M.R.Ramakrishnan 14.Dr.M.Senthilkumar 15.Dr.N.Poongodi 16.Dr.B.Jose Chakkaravarthy 17.Dr.S.Karuppiah 18.Dr.A.Senthilkumar 19.Dr.K.Muruganandhan 20.Dr.T.Srinivasan 21.Dr.B.Rajesh 22.Dr.V.Thanikaivel 23.Dr.P.Sureshkumar 24.Dr.M.Murugesan (R5 to R24 are impleaded vide order dated 01.03.2023 made in CMP(MD)No.1663 of 2023) 25.Dr.P.Elango 26.Dr.P.Mareeshwaran 27.Dr.N.Subburaj 28.Dr.M.Karthikeyaraja 29.Dr.V.Sakthivel 30.Dr.P.Balakumar 2/9
31.Dr.P.Murali 32.Dr.J.Lakshmanan 33.Dr.T.Ponraj 34.Dr.N.Kathiravan 35.Dr.V.Asir Adwin 36.Dr.S.Selvaraj 37.Dr.A.Senthilkumar 38.Dr.M.Alamelu 39.Dr.K.Saravanan 40.Dr.N.Kumar 41.Dr.M.Chandrasekar 42.Dr.K.Somasundaram 43.Dr.G.Sundaramoorthy (R25 to R43 are impleaded vide Court order dated 01.03.2023 in CMP(MD)No.1660 of 2023) 44.Dr.R.Sivaprakasam 45.Dr.A.Premkumar 46.Dr.J.Jeyamani 47.Dr.G.Alagirisamy 48.Dr.C.Boopathi 49.Dr.P.Bhagatsingh 50.Dr.R.Muthusamy 51.Dr.S.K.Ramesh 52.Dr.A.Annamalai 53.Dr.A.R.Ravikumar 54.Dr.U.Satheeshkumar 55.Dr.S.Amutha 56.Dr.R.Vijayakumar 57.Dr.M.Thiyageeswaran 58.Dr.R.Murugesan 59.Dr.M.Sankaranarayanan 60.Dr.C.Karuppuchamy 61.Dr.S.Karikalan 62.Dr.S.Thangapandian (R44 to R62 are impleaded vide Court order dated 01.03.2023 made in CMP(MD)No.1652/2023) : Respondents/Respondents 3/9
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 09.12.2022 passed in W.P.(MD) No.27798 of 2022. For Appellants : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1, R3 & R4 Mr.J.Anandkumar Standing Counsel for R2 Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian for R5 to R20 Mr.Raja for R21 to R62 *** COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) A notification was issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in order to recruit Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services. Being aggrieved by certain provisions in the notification, the petitioners, who are working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons having been recruited under Rule 10 (a) (i) (temporarily), had come up with the writ petition.
2.The very notification calling for applications from eligible 4/9
candidates was issued on 18.11.2022, pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 07.04.2022 made in Civil Appeal No.4351 of 2016. The said Civil Appeal also arose out of the proceedings launched by the temporarily recruited Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, who wanted to resist regular recruitment. The Government came up with the proposal to regularize the service of those temporarily recruited Veterinary Assistant Surgeons during the course of hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the said proposal and accepted an alternative proposal given by the Government to award weightage marks for those in-service candidates. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued a direction regarding conduct of the examination.
After the issuance of the notification, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition contending that the said notification is in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The violations pointed out are (i) notification itself has been issued beyond the time prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (ii) while the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed conduct of examination only in two subjects, 3rd test, namely, Tamil Eligibility Test has been introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu and (iii) the tests are to be conducted as computer based tests.
3.Mr.Raja Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants 5/9
would vehemently contend that the delay in issuing the notification beyond the time prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had the effect increasing the number of eligible candidates by more than 500, thereby, forcing these temporary appointees, who are aged above 50, to face stiff contest from freshers, who have just come out of college. He also added that the introduction of computer based tests puts lot of difficulties, inasmuch as they are not well versed in computers or their operation. The third grievance is that Tamil Eligibility Test has been introduced.
4.The Writ Court had dismissed the writ petition on the premise that it is open to the applicants to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of contempt, if the petitioners feel that the order of the Supreme Court has not been fully and strictly adhered to. Before us also, the same contentions are reiterated. Of course, there is some delay in publication of the notification. The mandate issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to conclude the selection by 31.12.2022, has been breached. That by itself cannot, in our opinion, be a ground to set aside the order of the Writ Court. 5.Similarly, the other ground that has been raised is relating to the computer based test. Today, in the world of information technology, every 6/9
examination has become digital and everything is moving towards digital world. Therefore, we cannot direct the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to conduct the examination in the ordinary mode. If the petitioners are aggrieved, it is open to them, to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court to seek suitable modification.
6.Further, Introduction of Tamil Eligibility Test is also a policy decision of the Government of Tamil Nadu and it is a step towards improving the knowledge of the Tamil in people having their mother tongue as Tamil. We do not think that we can tinker with the selection process which will lead to us altering the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which we cannot to do. 7.Therefore, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court if the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been disobeyed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.M..,J] (L.V.G.,J] skn 14.03.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No 7/9
To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Nandanam, Chennai - 9.
4.The Secretary to the Government, Human Resources Management Department, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai - 9.
8/9
R.SUBRAMANIAN.,J.
AND L.VICTORIA GOWRI.,J.
skn and CMP(MD)No.12686 of 2022 14.03.2023 9/9