Judgements

  • Home
  • Forms & Downloads
  • Judgements

General Judgments

  • Community verification

    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

  • Fitment Roster

    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
    3 W.P.No.8710 of 2015 (High Court of Madras) The petitioner has not admittedly made claim the experience while filling the online application and he has produced the said certificate only after the written examination. Therefore, the reason for rejection of the petitioner's application cannot be disputed.
    4 W.A.No.1511 of 2018 (High Court of Madras) The dismissal was on account of the fact that while making the online application the appellant has not claimed that he had a prerequisite driving experience and it was only at the time of scrutiny of documents that he had forwarded the said certificates.
    5 W.P.(MD) Nos.19700 of 2020 and 687 & 1068 of 2021 W.M.P.(MD).Nos.16424, 16425, 16426 & 16428 of 2020 and 923 & 576 of 2021 (High Court of Madras) It is needless to mention that if at all the petitioners are of the view that the degrees they passed are equivalent to the prescribed Educational Qualification it is always open to them to approach the concerned Equivalence Committee, namely State Council for Higher Education.
    6 W.P(MD)No.20738 of 2023 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) To call for the records relating to List – OT dated 14.08.2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent, pursuant to Advertisement No.638, Notification No.32/2022, dated 11.11.2022 and quash the same in so far as the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Bursar in Tamil Nadu Educational Service and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the Oral Test scheduled on 31.08.2023 and reserve one post of Bursar in Tamil Nadu Educational Service.
    7 W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022(Madras High Court) The scope of Judicial review is limited in respect of correctness of final answer keys uploaded by the Commission. Eventhough the Apex Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert Committee, did not enter in to the correctness of the questions and answer by itself.
    8 W.P(MD)Nos.11676 & 11677 of 2023(Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) The Commission constituted an expert committee to place all the representations of the candidates regarding answer keys, based on the recommendation of the expert committee has awarded marks to the candidates. The Court can not act likes an expert body replacing the assessment made by the experts by uploading the represenentations submitted by the petitioners herein along with supporting documents produced by them.
    9 W.P.(MD)No.21429 of 2024 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) To provide grace marks for the questions challenged and to publish the final answer key within the stipulated time period for the posts included in Group-I-2024

  • Non-Enclosures

    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.
    7 W.P.Nos.23316 of 2021 and 27754 of 2021 The petitioners have not uploaded the documents for Onscreen Certificate Verification within the stipulated time
    8 W.P.(MD).No. 9288 of 2022 The petitioner has not uploaded relevant documents with the time stipulated by the Commission
    9 W.P.(MD).No. 9362 of 2022 The petitioner has not uploaded relevant documents with the time stipulated by the Commission
    10 W.P.(MD).No. 9391 of 2022 The petitioner has not uploaded relevant documents with the time stipulated by the Commission
    11 W.P.(MD).No. 25178 of 2022 The petitioner has not uploaded relevant documents with the time stipulated by the Commission
    12 W.P.No.143 of 2024 filed by Tmt.G.Janani before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras No vacancy in the Destitute Widow Category was availavle for Phase-II counseling. Hence, request made by the petitioner for further time to furnish the documents, cannot be consider.

  • 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

  • Oral Test

    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
    2 W.P.No.27064 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.26439 of 2019 (High Court of Madras) In the online application submitted by the petitioner, he did not mention the required experience in the field of Civil Engineering and he has mentioned only teaching experience in Civil Engineering.
    3 W.P. No. 29961 of 2019 and W.M.P. No. 29865 of 2019 (High Court of Madras) The Petitioner has not produced equivalent certificate nor possessed the required qualification, the Respondents have rightly rejected his candidature and not permitted him to participate in the Oral Test.
    4 W.P.No.28045 of 2018 (Madras High Court) To call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 09.10.2018 and consequential order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 17.10.2018 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for oral interview for the post of Tourist Officer held on 02.11.2018.

  • Qualification

    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
    4 W.P.(MD)No.9300 of 2024 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) To provide one year age relaxation to apply for the posts included in Combined Civil Services Examination - 1 (Group-I Services)

  • 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.
    2 W.P(MD).No.4891 of 2021 The petitioner has not submitted evidence for Equivalence of qualification to the prescribed qualification in the form of Government Order issued on or before the date of this Notification
    3 W.P(MD).No. 5460 of 2021 The petitioner has not submitted evidence for Equivalence of qualification to the prescribed qualification in the form of Government Order issued on or before the date of this Notification
    4 W.P.(MD).No. 9280 of 2022 As the petitioner has not had the required Experience Certificate as per the notification, his/her application has been rejected during onscreen certificate verification
    5 W.P.(MD).No. 9312 of 2022 The petitioner who had converted from Hinduism to Islam and on treating the application of the said petitioner under ‘Others’ category, he has exceeded the maximum age limit of 34 years as his date of birth is 14.05.1984 for the post of APP, Grade-II. Hence, the application of the said petitioner has been rejected during onscreen certificate verification as per para 4 (A) of Notification No.10/2021, dated 25.08.2021 for the reason that he has exceeded the maximum age limit while treating his application under ‘Others’.
    6 W.P.No.27747 of 2023 -(Madras High Court) Post of Junior Rehabilitation Officer in Welfare of Differently Abled Persons Department in Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service [Notification No.35/2022, dated 09.12.2022]- Prayer to permit the Petitioner for Physical certificate verification to be held on 22.09.2023 – Hon’ble High Court of Madras has dismissed the case as the petitioner is not qualified as per the expert opinion.
    7 W.P.No.30159 of 2018 -(Madras High Court) W.P.No.30159 of 2018 - Post of Assistant Horticultural Officer [Notification No.10/2018, dated 25.05.2018]- Prayer to direct the 4th respondent to declare that the Two years Diploma in Agriculture with one year Post Diploma in Commercial Horticulture offered by the 5th respondent (The Gandhigram Rural Institute-Deemed University) is equivalent to the two years Diploma in Horticulture offered by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University from the date of acquisition of the Diploma courses – Hon’ble High Court of Madras has dismissed the case.

  • Reservation

    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.

  • Re-evaluation

    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.
    5 W.A.Nos.724 & 760 of 2022 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
    6 W.A.Nos.1282, 1283 & 1710 of 2022 Taking average of two closest marks among the three valuations: In other words, out of the three examiners, if the marks given by two examiners are closest to each other, whereas the marks given by third examiner is either very high or very low, one can safely infer that the valuation of the said paper by the two examiners, who have awarded marks, which are very closer to each other, is an objective assessment. On the contrary, adding the two highest marks and averaging it, would not result in a fair and objective determination. We do not find anything arbitrary in the methodology of evaluation adopted by the TNPSC in the instant cases, so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
    7 Civil Appeal No.1141 of 2023 Supreme Court disapproves of High Court ordering re-evaluation of answer sheets when there was no statutory provisions- Moreover, the award of marks in the descriptive type answers essentially remains a matter of subjective assessment and the Court would not be entering into that arena of assessment, which remains reserved for the examiner/evaluator.-However, having regard to peculiar facts, SC refuses to interfere with the relief granted by the HC to the student, but does not endorse the process-Para 13- Follows Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences vs Dr. Yerra Trinadh 2022 LiveLaw (SC)909, Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others: (2018) 2 SCC 357, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Another: (2010) 6 SCC 759
    8 W.P.No.12141 of 2023,(High Court of Madras) Praying to issue an appropriate writ, order of Direction in writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the impugned proceedings of the respondent published in the official website on 24.03.2023 in denying to evaluate the petitioner’s answer sheet for the exam conducted on 24.07.2022, for the Combined Civil Service Examination (Group IV) for various posts in all over Tamil Nadu, vide notification No.07 of 2022, dated 30.03.2022, and quash the same as Arbitrary, illegal and not est in the eye of Law and consequently direct the respondents to evaluate the petitioner’s answer sheet and publish the result and pass such further or other suitable / orders.
    9 W.P(MD)No.18265 of 2020(Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) Revaluation of the Departmental Answer book - Requests from candidates for furnishing the cause of failure in the test or for revaluation of their answer book will not be compiled with. However the Commission reserves to itself the right to get any answer book revalued if in its opinion there are sufficient and valid grounds to do so.
    10 W.P. No. 6558 of 2024 (High Court of Madras) Evaluating the answer sheet and declare the results of the petitioner.

  • Rules

    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
    6 W.A.No.1306 of 2019 (High Court of Madras) Whether the candidates possessing the technical qualification higher than the prescribed qualification are eligible for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade II, is the core issue that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal. There is no challenge to the General Rules which gives statutory recognition to the higher qualification.

  • 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.
    3 W.P. No. 410 of 2024 (High Court of Madras) The Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition to fix his seniority from Supplemental list to main list by granting due weightage to the petitioner's merit in the recruitment examination. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its order dated: 20.02.2024 has dismissed the Writ Petition.

  • SUPPRESSION OF FACT

    S.No Case No. Subject
    1 W.P(MD).No.14230 of 2018 The petitioner has not mentioned the Departmental Disciplinary action initiated in online application.
    2 W.P.(MD)No.516 of 2020, before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Praying to grant an order of interim stay of the proceedings of the first respondent (i.e. The Secretary, TNPSC) debarring him for having suppressed the fact of pending criminal case against him bearing Memorandum No.868/PSD-C1/2019, dated 30.12.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to re- appoint/continue the petitioner as draftsman in the 2nd respondent’s (i.e. Survey and Land Records Department, Virudhunagar District) Department.

  • EQUIVALANCE

    S.No Case No. Subject
    1 W.P.No.24432 of 2015 B.Sc., Applied Chemistry granted by Annamalai University is not equivalent to the degree of B.Sc., Chemistry

  • MUSLIM CONVERSION

    S.No Case No. Subject
    1 W.P.(MD) No.1019 of 2022 MUSLIM CONVERSION