Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has invalidated the provisional recruitment of 245 civil judges for the Tamil Nadu judicial service for breach of reservation and roster regulations.

Through an order dated February 27, Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to cancel the provisional select list published on February 16, 2024, and release a revised list within two weeks of the order. 

The high court observed that the TNPSC misconstrued the scope of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and erroneously accommodated the top rank holders in the merit list under the reserved category posts and provided general category posts to other candidates, who scored lesser marks.

Court held that the methodology adopted by the TNPSC was a clear violation of the scope of Section 27(f), as interpreted by the Apex Court of India in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shobana (2021) 

"...erroneous placing of candidates, both under the general category and under the reserved category, resulted in denial of opportunity to several other candidates, who all are otherwise eligible for inclusion of their respective names, either under the general category or under the reserved category, based on the marks scored," court opined. 

Court held that the provisional select list, published by the TNPSC needed to be redrawn by placing the toppers in the merit ranking list under the general category candidates in tune with the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Shobana's case.

Court was dealing with writ petitions filed by several candidates of the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services, conducted by TNPSC. 

The petitioners contended that the TNPSC's June 1, 2023 notification invited applications for 245 civil judge positions, including 92 "carried forward" vacancies. They claimed that according to the notification, these 92 vacancies should have been filled by implementing reservation provisions as per Section 27(f) of the 2016 Act, while the remaining 153 regular vacancies should have followed the general reservation rule.

While allowing the petitions, court clarified that the top court, in unequivocal terms, has held that the meritorious candidates/toppers are to be placed under the general category as the legal principles are settled in this regard.

"Toppers, in the order of merit ranking, cannot be placed under the reserved category merely on the sphere of filling up of backlog vacancies," court held. 

Court further clarified that on preparation of merit list/ranking list, the meritorious candidates, who scored the highest marks, must be accommodated under the general category at the first instance and thereafter, other candidates are to be accommodated in the carry forward vacancies, as per the quota earmarked and remaining vacancies are to be filled up against the current vacancies.

Case Title: J.Sheena v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Another