01Facts
The petitioners, Chandrakala and Gnanasekaran, and Sakthivel belonged to the MBC category and were candidates for PG Assistant (Geography) posts.
p. 6 · ¶ 2–3Sakthivel scored 87 marks, above the stated General Turn (GT) cut-off of 85; Chandrakala scored 85.
p. 6 · ¶ 2–3In the provisional list dated 13 October 2022, Sakthivel was placed under GT and the petitioners under MBC.
p. 6 · ¶ 2–3A revised provisional list dated 25 October 2022 placed Sakthivel under the MBC roster, with the result that Gnanasekaran was not selected.
p. 6 · ¶ 2–3The petitioners challenged the revised list, arguing that Sakthivel should have been adjusted against GT under the principle in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shobana.
p. 6 · ¶ 2–3 · p. 8 · ¶ 802Issues
i.Whether the revised provisional selection list could place Sakthivel, who had scored above the GT cut-off, against an MBC backlog vacancy rather than under GT.
p. 8 · ¶ 8–9ii.Whether the revised list should be set aside to the extent necessary to enable the petitioners’ selection under the MBC turn, if otherwise qualified.
p. 8 · ¶ 8 · p. 9 · ¶ 1003Law Applied
Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act concerns reservation of appointments and provides for backlog vacancies to be filled first; it does not, by itself, require a candidate selected against a backlog vacancy to be fitted into that candidate’s communal roster for purposes of seniority or ranking.
p. 7 · ¶ 5 · p. 8 · ¶ 9Relying on State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shobana, (2021) 4 SCC 686, the Court stated that selection ranking is determined by merit and that a candidate who has secured higher marks and qualifies for a GT turn should be placed in GT, notwithstanding the existence of a communal backlog vacancy.
p. 8 · ¶ 9Provisions in the judgment · 1
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2014 Section 27
04Reasoning
The Court treated the candidates’ marks as undisputed and focused on their placement in the revised list.
p. 8 · ¶ 8–9 · p. 9 · ¶ 10Sakthivel’s 87 marks exceeded the GT cut-off of 85, while Chandrakala had scored 85.
p. 8 · ¶ 8–9 · p. 9 · ¶ 10Applying its reading of Section 27(f) and Shobana, the Court rejected the respondents’ contention that Sakthivel had to be placed against the MBC backlog vacancy merely because that vacancy was to be filled first.
p. 8 · ¶ 8–9 · p. 9 · ¶ 10It concluded that Sakthivel should have been placed under GT, and that the revised placement had adversely affected the petitioners’ prospects under the MBC turn.
p. 8 · ¶ 8–9 · p. 9 · ¶ 1005Holding
The Court allowed both writ petitions and quashed the revised provisional selection list dated 25 October 2022 insofar as it affected the petitioners.
p. 9 · ¶ 10–11It directed the respondents to select both petitioners under the MBC turn, if they were otherwise qualified, and to complete the exercise within eight weeks of receiving the order.
p. 9 · ¶ 10–11No costs were awarded.
p. 9 · ¶ 10–11Original Court PDF
C.ChandrakalavsThe State of Tamil Nadu
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
