Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.15-18 OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5877-5878 OF 2014
SECRETARY, TAMILNADU
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION …APPLICANT
VERSUS
A.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
I.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A.
No.5879/2014
I.A.Nos.23-24 IN C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014
I.A.Nos.41-42 IN C.A.NO.5882-5883/2014
I.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5884/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2119/2014 IN C.A.
No.5884/2014
R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014
CONMT. PET. (C) NO……/2014 (DIARY NO.31357/2014)
IN I.A. NOS.15-16/2014 IN C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014
CONMT. PET. (C) NO……/2014 (DIARY NO.31358/2014)
IN I.A. NO.24/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014
R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014
R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014
R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 IN C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2016.10.20
16:46:22 IST
Reason:
J U D G M E N T
2
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. These review petitions and applications have been filed
by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and some of the
employees of the State of Tamil Nadu, who had been appointed
in Tamil Nadu State Services, but by virtue of the judgment
th
dated 30 June, 2014 delivered by this Court in
C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, confirming the judgment delivered
by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal
th
Nos.1063 and 1287 of 2009 dated 4 March, 2011, their
services are to be terminated.
2. The case on hand has a chequered history, which has
th
been narrated in the judgment dated 30 June, 2014 delivered
by this Court in C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, which is sought to
be reviewed and therefore, we do not narrate the facts once
again.
3. Suffice it is to state that an examination was held by
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for selecting candidates
for certain Tamil Nadu State services and it was alleged that
some irregularities had been committed in examining the
answer books submitted by the candidates. In the
circumstances, a petition was filed in the High Court of Madras
challenging appointments of the candidates who had been
finally selected. The said petition had been rejected by the
3
learned Single Judge and the appeal filed against the order of
rejection had been allowed, whereby services of some of the
selected candidates had to be terminated. The said judgment of
the Division Bench was confirmed by this Court by virtue of the
judgment, which is sought to be reviewed by this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission, State of Tamil Nadu and the selected
candidates submitted that the judgment is required to be
reviewed for the reason that the selected candidates did not get
due opportunity before the High Court to represent their case
and the State of Tamil Nadu was not a party to the original
litigation, though it ought to have been joined because the
candidates who were admitted to the State services, whose
services were sought to be terminated, had been appointed by
the State of Tamil Nadu. It is also case of the applicants
praying for review of the judgment that certain methods, which
had been adopted by the High Court while coming to the final
conclusion arrived at, by virtue of the judgment delivered by the
Division Bench, were not proper and therefore, the selection
made by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission should not
have been set aside, especially when all the candidates who had
been selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and
who had been appointed to different State services by the State
of Tamil Nadu were in service for more than 7-8 years with due
4
efficiency and their effectiveness as officers was never
questioned even by their superiors or by the State of Tamil
Nadu. It was also submitted that grave injustice would be
caused to those officers working for several years as their
services will be terminated and they will not get any chance to
get any employment elsewhere as they have already crossed the
age limit for applying for any other government post by virtue of
afflux of time and that too for no fault on their part.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for
the original petitioners before the High Court submitted that
the judgment sought to be reviewed is just and proper and
therefore, there is no reason to disturb the said judgment,
especially in view of the fact that the review applications had
been filed after a long time and it would not be in the interest of
society to continue such officers, who had been improperly or
irregularly selected. According to the learned counsel, a
message must go to the society that no irregularity committed
while examining the answer books can be tolerated
6. Several submissions were made by the learned counsel
appearing for the original petitioners before the High Court with
regard to use of colour pencils, pens etc. by the candidates
while answering the question papers. Different views were
expressed by different counsel even at the stage when the
matter was pending before the High Court, when the High
5
Court had appointed court officers to examine the answer
books. Different views were expressed by different persons and
even different views were expressed when the answer books had
been examined at the instance of this Court by independent
examiners of Union Public Service Commission. Be that as it
may, at this stage, when the candidates who were appointed
and who have been working as State Officers for more than 10
years or so and when the examiners, who have rechecked the
answer books, have expressed little different views and in view
of the fact that the selected candidates did not get any
opportunity to represent their cases before the High Court as
very little time was given to them to appear before the High
Court, it would be just and proper to review the judgment.
7. It is not in dispute that notices had been issued by the
High Court to the selected candidates, which were made
nd
returnable on 2 March, 2011 and the matter had been finally
th
decided on 4 March, 2011. It is thus clear that sufficient time
was not given to the selected candidates to represent their
cases before the High Court and the said fact has been now
brought to the notice of this Court. Thus, the submission made
on behalf of the selected candidates are found to be correct and
in fact they did not get adequate opportunity to represent their
case effectively before the learned Single Judge.
8. Having overall view of the matter, in the interest of
6
administration as well as in the interest of the candidates, who
have already passed the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission and have been appointed by the State of
Tamil Nadu in State services before several years, in exercise of
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct
that the candidates who have been working in different services
of Tamil Nadu State shall be continued in service,
notwithstanding any order passed by the Division Bench of
Madras High Court and confirmed by this Court.
9. We have adopted this course mainly for the reason
that the selected candidates did not get sufficient opportunity
to represent their case before the High Court, as stated
hereinabove and upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon
perusal of the record and report received from Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission as well as Union Public Service
Commission, we also find that the mistakes, if any, committed
by the candidates who have now been selected, were very often
ignored and therefore, it would not be just and proper to take
such a harsh view in the matter so as to render several
reasonably good officers working for several years jobless.
Moreover, in any case, the original petitioners who had filed the
petition, are not likely to have any benefit because in any case
they had failed at the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission and therefore, there is no question of
7
giving any appointment to them at this stage.
10. For the aforestated reasons the review applications are
allowed only to the above extent by exercising our power under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. All interlocutory
applications and the contempt petitions are also disposed of
accordingly.
.…………………….J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
……………………..J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016.
8
REVISED
ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.2 SECTION XII
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. Nos.15-18/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014
SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)
WITH
I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A.
No.5879/2014
I.A. Nos.23-24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014
I.A. Nos.41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014
I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 & R.P.(c) No.2119/2014 in CA.
No.5884/2014
R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 in C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014
C.P.(C) D 31357/2014 IN I.A. Nos.15-16 in C.A. Nos. 5882-5883/2014
C.P.(C) D 31358/2014 IN I.A. No.24 in C.A. Nos. 5880-5881/2014
R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014
R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 in C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014
R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014
Date : 15/09/2016 These matters were called on for pronouncement
of judgment.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AOR
Ms. Nithya,Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,AOR
Mr. V. Balachandran,AOR
Mr. V. G. Pragasam,AOR
Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv.
9
Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv.
Mrs. Malavika J.,Adv.
Mr. Sureshan P.,AOR
Mr. S. Srinivasan,AOR
In RP.201-202/15 Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AOR
Mr. B. Balaji,AOR
Mr. Muthu Vel Palani,Adv.
Mr. Aravind Athithan,Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar,AOR
Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran,AOR
Mr. C. K. Sasi,AOR
Mr. G. Ananda Selvam,Adv.
Mr. K. Mayil Samy,Adv.
Mr. Ram Sankar,Adv.
Mr. Y. Lokesh,Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,AOR
Ms. T. Anamika,AOR
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,AOR
Ms. Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam,Adv.
Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv.
Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,AOR
Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,AOR
Mr. Anant Varma,Adv.
Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,AOR
Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,AOR
Mr. S. Muthu Krishnan,Adv.
Mr. Reegan S. Bell,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the judgment of
the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak
Misra.
10
“...8. Having overall view of the matter,
in the interest of administration as well as
in the interest of the candidates, who have
already passed the examination held by Tamil
Nadu Public Service Commission and have been
appointed by the State of Tamil Nadu in State
services before several years, in exercise of
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India, we direct that the candidates who
have been working in different services of
Tamil Nadu State shall be continued in
service, notwithstanding any order passed by
the Division Bench of Madras High Court and
confirmed by this Court.
9. We have adopted this course mainly for
the reason that the selected candidates did
not get sufficient opportunity to represent
their case before the High Court, as stated
hereinabove and upon hearing the concerned
counsel and upon perusal of the record and
report received from Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission as well as Union Public Service
Commission, we also find that the mistakes, if
any, committed by the candidates who have now
been selected, were very often ignored and
therefore, it would not be just and proper to
take such a harsh view in the matter so as to
render several reasonably good officers
working for several years jobless. Moreover,
in any case, the original petitioners who had
filed the petition, are not likely to have any
benefit because in any case they had failed at
the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission and therefore, there is no
question of giving any appointment to them at
this stage.
10. For the aforestated reasons the review
applications are allowed only to the above
extent by exercising our power under Article
142 of the Constitution of India. All
interlocutory applications and the contempt
petitions are also disposed of accordingly.”
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (SNEH BALA MEHRA)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed 'Reportable' Judgment is placed on the file)