K.MADALAIMUTHU vs THE SECRETARY TO UPSC

Court
Madras High Court

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
WP No. 7174 of 2025
and
WMP No.7957 of 2025
K.Madalaimuthu
S/o.N.R. Kolandai,
(Addl. Inspector General Of Registration (Rtd)
1b, Second Street, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar,
Virugambakkam,Chennai-600 092.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary To UPSC
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shajahan Road,
New Delhi-110 069.
2. The Joint Secretary And
The Selection Committee For Selection To
IAS,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shajahan Road,
New Delhi-110 069.
3. The Secretary
Department Of Personnel And Training
Government Of India, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Chief Secretary
Government Of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
5. The Secretary
Public (Special-A) Department,
Government Of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai-09.
__________
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
6. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai-104.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Minutes vide
UPSC , FILE No.6/18 (1) / 2018- AIS dtd 17.08.2018 of th Review Selection
committee (2nd respondent) and quash their decision of not recommending
the inclusion of the name of the petitioner K. Madalaimuthu in the select
list of 2007 for appointment by selection to the Indian Administrative Service
of Tamil Nadu Cadre and Direct the Respondents to promote the petitioner,
K.Madalaimuthu and grant him all attendant service and monetary benefits
due to him in the cadre of IAS.
For Petitioner(s): Dr.A.E.CHELLAIAH SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR Mr.K.Ramanujam
For Respondent(s): MR. V. CHANDRASEKARAN SPC FOR R1 to R3
Mr.A.R.Suresh,
Special Government Pleader FOR R4 & R5
R6 - TRIBUNAL
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
Under assail is the order of the Union Public Service Commission dated
17.08.2018, not recommending the name of the writ petitioner for inclusion for
conferring Indian Administrative Service in the select list of 2007.
2.The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner was appointed as direct
recruit District Registrar in the year 1989 in the Registration Department of
__________
Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
Government of Tamil Nadu. He retired as Additional Inspector General of
Registration on 31.12.2013. Even during his inception in the initial cadre, his
seniority was not fixed appropriately and he approached the Court of law for
settling his seniority in the post of District Registrar. The petitioner succeeded
in re-fixing his seniority pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, which is a reported case i.e. K.Madalaimuthu and another Vs.
1
State of Tamil Nadu and others .
3.The name of the writ petitioner was not sponsored to Indian
Administrative Service initially during the year 2007 and in the subsequent
year 2009. The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and the Apex Court granted liberty to approach the Court having jurisdiction.
Consequently, the petitioner filed an original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal in OA No.565 of 2011. The Central Administrative
Tribunal directed the official respondents to consider the name of the writ
petitioner for inclusion in the select list of the year 2007 for appointment by
selection to Indian Administrative Service of Tamil Nadu cadre. State
preferred a writ petition in WP No.16147 of 2011 and it was dismissed by the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court and a SLP was filed by the State,
which also came to be dismissed in the year 2012. Thereafter, the Chief
Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu addressed a letter to the Union
Public Service Commission along with a proposal to consider the name of the
1
2006 (6) SCC 558
__________
Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
writ petitioner herein to appoint him to Indian Administrative Service. The
Review Selection Committee reconsidered the case of the writ petitioner and
found that the last person considered for inclusion in the select list
Mr.P.Muthuveeran secured 71 marks, but the writ petitioner
Mr.K.Madalaimuthu secured 69 marks and therefore, his name cannot be
considered for inclusion in the select list of the year 2007.
4.Again the writ petitioner challenged the said decision of the Review
Selection Committee. Several rounds of litigations were instituted on more
than one occasion, and the Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court
directed the Union Public Service Commission to reconsider the case of the
writ petitioner for inclusion of his name in the select list of the year 2007 for
appointment by selection to Indian Administrative Service of Tamil Nadu
cadre. Even during the further reconsideration, the same decision was taken
by the Review Selection Committee based on the marks secured by the writ
petitioner and he could not able to secure selection for appointment to Indian
Administrative Service of Tamil Nadu cadre by including his name in the select
list of the year 2007. The last decision taken by the Union Public Service
Commission dated 17.08.2018 is under challenge in the present writ
proceedings.
5.The learned Senior Counsel Dr.A.E.Chellaiah would strenuously
contend that the word “reconsider” was misconstrued by the competent
__________
Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
authority. An error crept in even while considering the service records of the
writ petitioner. The marks awarded to the petitioner based on his service
records are not only improper, but based on the assessment made by a Junior
Officer. Therefore, the reconsideration must be done in entirety right from
reassessment of the service records of the writ petitioner and by awarding the
marks afresh. He would draw the attention of this Court with reference to the
judgments and plead that the writ petitioner is having clean records of service
and allowed to retire from service on 31.12.2013. Right from his initial
appointment, he was fighting for fixation of seniority in a rightful manner and
thereafter, continued his litigative process for appointment by selection to
Indian Administrative Service of Tamil Nadu cadre. The long legal battle
underwent by the writ petitioner is to be taken into consideration in the context
of the fact that the assessment of the service records were not made in
consonance with the established principles.
6.Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for R1 and R2
and Mr.AR.Suresh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the State Government would oppose by stating that the writ petition per se
is not maintainable and to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
That apart, the present writ petition has been instituted without approaching
the Central Administrative Tribunal which is the Court of first instance having
jurisdiction and on that ground also the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
The assessment was made based on the service records by the State
__________
Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
Government and the Review Selection Committee consisting a senior most
IAS officer from the Tamil Nadu cadre participated in the Review Selection
Committee. The reassessment was done in pursuance to the directions
issued by the Courts. More than one occasion, the case of the writ petitioner
was reconsidered. However, the Review Section Committee found that there
is no reason to select the writ petitioner on account of the fact that he scored
lesser marks than that of the marks scored by the last candidate who was
selected in the year 2007 i.e.,Mr.P.Muthuveeran. That apart, the writ
petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2013. The order of the Review
Selection Committee was passed on 17.08.2018, but the writ petition was filed
in the year 2025, after a lapse of about seven years from the date of passing
the order without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. For all
these reasons, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.
7.This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the parties
to the lis on hand.
8.No doubt, there is a force on the contentions raised by
Dr.A.E.Chellaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He would make
an attempt to redefine the directions of this Court directing the authorities to
reconsider the case of the writ petitioner. Reconsideration does not mean that
the Review Selection Committee must proceed based on the marks already
awarded, but the award of marks by itself ought to have been reconsidered in
__________
Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
the context of its correctness. The Division Bench of this Court made a finding
in order dated 28.02.2023, passed in Cont P. Nos.593 and 594 of 2019. In
paragraph No.21, this Court made an observation that,
“Thus, we find that the conduct of the UPSC in
adopting 42 marks that was awarded in the said Review
Selection Committee meeting held on 17.08.2018
cannot be found fault with and the same is in tune with
the order passed by this Court”.
9.The query raised by Dr.A.E.Chellaiah, learned Senior Counsel has
been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the above order passed
in the contempt petitions. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for this Court to
redefine the definition for the term reconsideration and moreso, the said order
of the Division Bench passed in the contempt petitions was confirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by an order dated 22.09.2023.
10.In respect of the order passed by the Union Public Service
Commission, an aggrieved person has to approach the Central Administrative
Tribunal. In the present case, the petitioner has directly filed the writ petition
before this Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the writ petition was filed in pursuance to the orders of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. However, the order dated 17.08.2018 came to be
challenged in the present writ petition in the year 2025, after a lapse of seven
years. The writ petitioner retired on 31.12.2013. More than two occasions,
deliberations were made by the Review Selection Committee. The issues
__________
Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
raised by the petitioner were answered and reconsideration was also done by
the Review Selection Committee in pursuance to the directions issued by the
Courts. Thus, the writ petition by itself is filed beyond the reasonable time and
to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Union Public
2
Service Commission Vs M. Sathiya Priya and others held as follows:
“The question as to how the categories are
assessed in light of the relevant records and
as to what norms apply in making the
assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the
Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make
selection as per law is vested in the Selection
Committee and as the Selection Committee
members have got expertise in the matter, it is not
open for the Courts generally to interfere in such
matters except in cases where the process of
assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias,
mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of
the Court to hear the matters before it
treating them as appeals over the decisions of
the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the
relative merit of the candidates. The question as to
whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not
has to be decided by the duly constituted expert
body, i.e., the Selection Committee.”
2
(2018) 15 SCC 796
__________
Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
12.The High Court is not expected to substitute the view of the Selection
Committee in such matters. In the present case, the case of the writ petitioner
was reconsidered more than one occasion and the Review Selection
Committee reconsidered by verifying the service records of the writ petitioner
and found that he is not suitable for inclusion in the select list of the year 2007
since the last candidate who was selected scored 71 marks, but the writ
petitioner scored 69 marks. This being the reasoning given by the Review
Selection Committee, no further deliberation is required in respect of the
issues raised in the writ petition. The petitioner has repeatedly raised similar
grounds, which were answered by this Court during earlier round of litigations.
13.In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition is
dismissed both on the ground of delay and latches and on merits. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.)
25-08-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
sli
__________
Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J.
SLI
To
1.The Secretary To UPSC
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shajahan Road,
New Delhi-110 069.
2.The Joint Secretary And
The Selection Committee For Selection To IAS,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shajahan Road,
New Delhi-110 069.
3.The Secretary
Department Of Personnel And Training Government Of India,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
4.The Chief Secretary
Government Of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
5.The Secretary
Public (Special-A) Department,
Government Of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai-09.
6.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai-104.
WP No. 7174 of 2025
25-08-2026
__________
Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )

2026:MHC:3574
WP No. 7174 of 2025
__________
Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 06:46:46 pm )