S.No Case No. Subject 1 W.A.(MD) No.104 of 2010 ( High Court of Madras ) Detailed guideline given for dealing with the genuineness of community certificates
S.No Case No. Subject 1 Writ Petition No.28501 of 2008( High Court of Madras ) In the absence of any specific rule or guideline, it is always open to the selecting authority, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission herein, to adopt a reasonable criteria which will not be arbitrary or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India 2 Writ Petition No.27672 of 2008( High Court of Madras ) Under the Subsidiary Rule for direct recruitment comprising written examination and oral test, in case of two or more candidates scoring equal marks, the candidates senior in age has to be placed above in the merit list 3 Civil Appeal No. 7608 of 1995(Supreme Court of India) The second proviso to Rule 13 is inapplicable to the facts and was also right in its finding that when appointments are made to fill up the vacancies in the order of roster, the order of merit prepared by the Selection Committee gets changed. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.
Instruction etc. To Candidates
S.No Case No. Subject 1 W.P.Nos.37308 of 2005 and Others( High Court of Madras ) The non-enclosure of the Registration Certificate issued by the Veterinary Council, which was not specifically required to be produced along with the application either in the Notification/Advertisement or in the Information Brochure or in the Check List cannot be put against the petitioners for rejecting their applications 2 Writ Petition No.32383 of 2005 ( High Court of Madras ) Instructions, etc. to Candidates as well as the Information Brochure of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission-hold that the terms and conditions of Instructions, etc. to Candidates and Information Brochure have the force of law and have to be strictly complied with-the view that no modification / relaxation can be made by the Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and application filed in violation of the Instructions, etc. to Candidates and the terms of the Information Brochure is liable to be rejected-the view that strict adherence to the terms and conditions is paramount consideration and the same cannot be relaxed unless such power is specifically provided to a named authority by the use of clear language
S.No Case No. Subject 1 Writ Appeal No. 1419 of 2010 & M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2010 ( High Court of Madras ) Superseded by Bamila case 2 W.A. No. 215 of 2008( High Court of Madras ) If there are defective applications, the Commission has the right to reject the application. 3 Writ Petition No.12610 of 2008 & M.P.Nos. 1 to 3 of 2008( High Court of Madras ) Destitute Widow certificate was not submitted along with the application - crucial factor to be considered is whether on the crucial date viz., on the date of making application, the candidate was a destitute widow or not - Whether it is produced along with the application or some time later, is immaterial - If such a certificate is produced before the list of candidates is finalised for interview, that would serve the purpose and would not prejudice the cause of the other candidates. 4 W.P.Nos.27108 & 27110 of 2008 and connected miscellaneous petitions( High Court of Madras ) It was mandatory to file certain documents claiming one or other benefit and in the absence of such documents, the application could not have been entertained 5 Writ Petition No.26965 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008( High Court of Madras ) Submission of a Community Certificate along with the OMR Application Form, is mandatory and not directory and in the absence of such Community Certificate, the candidature of the candidate cannot be considered even for the Interview against the reserved category post 6 W.P.No.23189 of 2008(High Court of Madras) Once a candidate produced a valid Community Certificate from a competent Authority, unless the said Certificate is cancelled in the manner known to law, the respondent should abide by.
Operation Of Reserve List
S.No Case No. Subject 1 W.A. NO. 1466 OF 2008 AND W.A. NOS. 24 TO 27 OF 2009 ( High Court of Madras ) Subsequent panel having not prepared, the earlier waiting list is in force, if the State Government has made a requisition to forward the name of the petitioner, it was not open to the TNPSC to refuse to recommend such name. 2 Case No.W.A. NO. 1466 OF 2008 AND W.A. NOS. 24 TO 27 OF 2009 ( High Court of Madras ) Selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other allied services. T 3 W.P.No.19612 of 2007 and Others ( High Court of Madras ) The petitioners have got every right to seek appointment on the basis of the availability of vacancies due to non-joining of the selected candidates. 4 W.P.No.33786 of 2006 & (O.A.No.5433 of 1998)( High Court of Madras ) Select list can be operated only as against the notified vacancies, but not against future vacancies
S.No Case No. Subject 1 Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Etc Versus State of Haryana and Others Etc( Supreme Court of India ) Where there is a composite test consisting of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the number of candidates to be called for interview in order of the marks obtained in the written examination, should not exceed twice or at the highest, thrice the number of vacancies to be filled - where the competitive examination consists of a written examination followed by a viva voce test, the marks allocated for the viva voce test shall not exceed 12.2 per cent of the total marks taken into account for the purpose of selection
S.No Case No. Subject 1 W.A.No.476 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 ( High Court of Madras ) The Head of the Department has no authority to issue certificate of equivalence. It is for the University to issue such certificates 2 Writ Petition No.20857 of 2006 O.A.No.2183 of 1994 ( High Court of Madras ) The petitioner was found to have exceeded the age limit on the date of the notification and was not considered for the appointment to the main written examination - no relaxation of age was also given, as the petitioner is not entitled. 3 W.P.No.27190 of 2006 (T), O.A.No.7840 of 1995 ( High Court of Madras ) The petitioner did not send any evidence to show that he had possessed the driving experience necessary for submitting the application - application rejected - taken written examination pursuant to the interim order - secured 104.5 marks in the written examination. The cut off marks for the candidates belonging to the Backward class for admission to the oral test was 134.5 marks. Since the petitioner had secured only 104.5 marks, he was not summoned for the oral test - petitioner could not qualify himself for being selected as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II
Rejection of Application
S.No Case No. Subject 1 Writ Appeal No.688 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008( High Court of Madras ) In the absence of any signature on the application form (i.e. below Column No.24), it is not possible to find out as to whether such application form has been filled up by the candidate himself/herself - non-signing of the application form rendered the particulars furnished un-authenticated and the application form cannot be considered as a valid one.
S.No Case No. Subject 1 W.P.Nos.7237 of 2010 & W.P.No.17825 of 2008 M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2008 ( High Court of Madras ) Immediate steps shall be taken to clear the backlog vacancies and the Government should ensure that the rule of reservation of 3% shall be adhere to strictly in accordance with Section 33 of the Act and as stated in the report submitted by the State Commissioner for disabled to give full and effective implementation to the provisions of the Act. 2 W.P.Nos.12552,10336,10337 & 17454 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2009( High Court of Madras ) The internal reservation giving preference to Arunthathiyar Community is to be counted in the existing selection - the petitioner has claimed consideration of his case and for grant of appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) under the S.C.Arunthathiyar quota, it is for the Electricity Board to work out the number of posts available. In case the petitioner comes within the preferential quota, his case can be considered for the grant of an appointment. 3 W.P. No.5097 of 2009 ( High Court of Madras ) The petitioner was entitled to be appointed against the post which was kept vacant pursuant to the Court's interim order and other successful candidates failed to question the selection, so they cannot be held to get a general order for appointing all of them. 4 W.P.No.18399 of 2008( High Court of Madras ) Reservation of 30% of posts provided for the women under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules is a constitutionally valid. 5 W.P.Nos.14312 and 16610 of 2007 (T) (O.A.Nos.3513 and 2689 of 2003)( High Court of Madras ) It is imperative on the part of the Government to identify the number of back log vacancies and fill up the same, by arranging special recruitment drive in accordance with the provisions of the Person with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and full participation) Act 1995 -directions of the Division Bench has to be implemented in letter and spirit - notification not quashed. 6 W.P.Nos.35808 of 2007 and 36777 of 2007 & M.P.Nos.1+1+2 of 2007( High Court of Madras ) The provisions of Section 33 read with Section 2(k) of the Act would prevail over the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and the government is duty bound to provide reservation of not less than 3% in every establishment for persons with disabilities.
S.No Case No. Subject 1 Writ Appeal Nos.649 and Others ( High Court of Madras ) In view of grant of marks to both groups of candidates for the disputed questions in the preliminary examination, the rigor of prejudice has been taken off and therefore, there is no occasion to say that there has been any unfair or impartial treatment to any of the candidates - There is no reason to interfere with the results of the examination, since no prejudice has been caused. 2 W.P.No.22988 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 ( High Court of Madras ) In absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluation, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. 3 Writ Petition Nos.28236 and Others ( High Court of Madras ) Awarding negative mark upheld. 4 W.P.No.15644 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1, 2, 3 & 6 of 2009 ( High Court of Madras ) Unsuccessful candidate after participating in a selection process cannot challenge the selection process - under the guise of asking for a revaluation, the petitioner's contention that his answer papers should be compared with the last three candidates selected in the vacancies in the quota meant for Scheduled Tribe Community cannot be countenanced.
S.No Case No. Subject 1 Writ Petition No.16309 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010( High Court of Madras ) The petitioner has rendered 27 years of unblemished service, which is not controverted the Court is of the considered view that the Government ought to have shown some leniency in allowing the petitioner to retire peacefully from service 2 W.P.No.6525 of 2001, W.P.No.10665 of 2001, W.P.No.12271 of 2001, W.P.No.12492 of 2001 and Others( High Court of Madras ) Objection not raised earlier but raised after the entire process of selection was completed, the point cannot now be considered or examined as the petitioners had acquiesced the action taken by the respondents 3 Writ Petition No.27437 of 2010 & M.P. No.1 of 2010 ( High Court of Madras ) When the Rules provide competition amongst the equals, the endeavour of the persons like the petitioner, who is unequal to compete, to project that she is treated unjustly by the authorities to deprive her of the post for which she is legally entitled to, would hardly be fructuous for the reason that as on the date of notification and as per the Rules, she was ineligible even to write the examination - Writ Petition dismissed. 4 W.P.Nos.28739, 28809, 28810 & 30011 of 2007 & M.P.NOS.1,2,1,1,1 & 2 of 2007( High Court of Madras ) Court cannot interfere with the qualifications prescribed by the authorities - fixing of cut-off marks cannot violate the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution - no court or tribunal could compel the Government to change its policy involving expenditure - age relaxation can never be given by a Court - it is purely administrative action. 5 W.P.Nos. 14169, 14170, 9687, 10413, 10824, 10825, 10909, and Others ( High Court of Madras ) Recruitment process held for the post - pending the final result fresh notification issued requiring higher qualification for recruitment to the post under contract basis - prescribing higher qualification is unreasonable - to be treated as inconsistent with the statutory provisions - will create an anomalous situation as the Diploma holders will be in a position to replace the Degree holders on their selection through TNPSC
Fixation of Seniority
S.No Case No. Subject 1 W.P.NO.2111 OF 2007 ( High Court of Madras ) When regularisation and seniority were already settled - there would not be any more need for selection - otherwise the settled position will not only unsettle the final and concluded position but will also pave way for chaos in the administration at the cost of harmful and serious effect on the administration. 2 W.P.Nos.4248 & 47703 of 2006 & M.P.No.3 of 2006( High Court of Madras ) The affected parties were not impleaded in the manner known to law, the writ petitions fail.