D. Anitha, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2018 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD) No.1249 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2013 1.D.Anitha 2.Kamaladevi 3.Bhanumathi 4.S.Umavathi ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Personal and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Near Government Dental Medical College, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.Ms.No.145(P&AR) Department dated 30.09.2010 and quash the portion relating to the illustration and consequential wrong selection made by the second respondent on 09.10.2012 and 20.11.2012 for the interview posts and non-interview posts respectively under Group-II Examination and consequently direct the respondents to issue amended Government Order so as to serve the purpose of thirty percent of special reservation in the SC Women Category other than PSTM and issue fresh selection notification by the TNPSC within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioners : No appearance For R1 : Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.K.K.Senthil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ *****
ORDER
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioners are D.Anitha, Kamaladevi, Banumathi and S.Umavathi and except S.Umavathi, all of them were already selected and appointed into the service. Hence, no further adjudication is required in this writ petition in respect of the fourth petitioner/S.Umavathi.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission states that the said S.Umavathi had not reached the zone of consideration, as the candidate had not secured the required cut off marks in the selection process. Thus, the fourth petitioner was not selected and there is no scope for further adjudication in respect of accommodating the fourth respondent.
3.In these circumstances, no further adjudication is required in this writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Secretary to Government, Personal and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
+ 1 cc TO Mr.K.K.Senthil , Advocate in SR No. 52067 + 1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 52499 rmi AE/SV MMS/SAR4/22.03.2018/2P/4C W.P.(MD) No.1249 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2013 28.02.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/