#திராவிடம் அறிவோம் (55)

G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reorms Dept., dated: 30.09.2010.

தமிழ் வழியில் படித்தவர்களுக்கு அரசு வேலைவாய்ப்புகளில் முன்னுரிமை வழங்குவதற்கான அரசாணை இது.

கலைஞரின் ஆட்சிக்காலத்தில் இந்த அரசாணை பிறப்பிக்கப்பட்டது.

இவ்வாணையின்படி, ஒரு குறிப்பிட்ட பணிக்குத் தேவையான அடிப்படைத் தகுதிக் கல்வியைத் தமிழ் வழியில் படித்தவர்களுக்கு, அந்தப் பணியிடங்களில் 20 விழுக்காடு இடங்கள் ஒதுக்கப்பட்டன. அதன்படியே, இன்று தமிழ்நாடு அரசுப்பணியாளர் தேர்வாணையம் அரசுப் பணிக்குப் பணியாளர்களைத் தேர்வு செய்து வருகிறது.

Challenged in court and dismissed:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56235554/

Madras High Court

S.Gomathi Nayagam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu ... on 25 July, 2014

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 25.07.2014

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

W.P.(MD)No.15383 of 2012

S.Gomathi Nayagam                ... Petitioner
                                   
     
Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by
   the Secretary to Government,
   Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department,
   Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Secretary,
   Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
   Near Government Dental Medical College,
   Frazer Bridge Road,
   V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town,
   Chennai-600 003.               ... Respondents

 
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the first respondent relating to G.O.Ms.No.145 (P&AR Department)
dated 30.09.2010 and quash the portion relating to the illustration and
consequential wrong selection made by the second respondent on 09.10.2012 and
20.11.2012 for the interview posts and non-interview posts respectively under
Group-II Examination and consequently direct the respondents to issue amended
Government Order so as to serve the purpose of twenty percent of special
reservation for persons studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) in all categories and
issue fresh selection notification by the TNPSC within a specified time frame
that may be fixed by this Court.

  
!For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Visvalingam
^For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss,
     Government Advocate


:ORDER

Challenge in this writ petition is to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 30.09.2010.

2.The facts of the case are as follows:

The Government of Tamil Nadu promulgated an Ordinance as Tamil Nadu Ordinance 3 of 2010 providing horizontal reservation to 20% in all posts and Government Services for the candidates who were studied in Tamil Medium. With a view to give effect to the said Ordinance, which was later on substituted by an Act, the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Ordinance, issued Rules under the name ?Tamil Nadu appointment on preferential basis in the Services under the State of Persons studied in Tamil Medium Rules, 2010?. In the Rules, Rule-3 speaks of manner of selection for appointment, which reads as follows:

?3.Manner of selection for appointment: Twenty percent of all vacancies in the appointment in the services under the State which are to be filled through direct recruitment shall be set apart on preferential basis to persons studied in Tamil medium as illustrated below:- ILLUSTRATION Out of 200 seats, 40 seats shall be set apart on preferential basis to persons studied in Tamil medium, in their respective category, in the following manner:

General Turn Backward Classes (Other than Backward Classes Muslims) Most Backward Classes / De-notified Communities Scheduled Castes Backward Classes Muslims Scheduled Caste Arunthathiars Scheduled Tribes (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)?

3.In this writ petition, the petitioner's contention is that the illustration given in Rule-3, if worked out properly, would demonstrate that 20% as mandated under the Act, is not preserved.

4.When this writ petition was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the illustration appended to Rule-3 is not correct and therefore the same requires correction. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission also forwarded a letter to the Government pointing out the above error in the illustration. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that now the error has been rectified and G.O.Ms.No.40, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 30.04.2014 has been issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further point out that as per the said amendment, illustration earlier appended to Rule-3 has been now deleted and in its place, a new illustration has been substituted. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that this revised illustration issued in G.O.Ms.No.40 is the correct one, which preserves 20% of employment for Tamil Medium candidates. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per G.O.Ms.No.40, the petitioner should be considered and he should be accordingly selected and posted in any one of the services in Group-II Examinations held as per the Advertisement No.258 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 30.12.2010.

5.The learned Government Advocate would vehemently oppose this writ petition. He would state that G.O.Ms.No.40 is only prospective in operation and if G.O.Ms.No.40 is to be given retrospective operation to the advertisement dated 30.12.2010 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, it would only create chaos and confusion, since in pursuance of the said advertisement, examinations were conducted, selection was completed and appointments have already been made. He would further submit that if the relief sought for by the petitioner is conceded to, then, many of the selected candidates may have to be sent out of service and many new faces may have to be allowed to be selected. This will only again create confusion and chaos and therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to give retrospective operation of G.O.Ms.No.40 cannot be countenanced.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would however submit that when this writ petition was admitted, this Court passed an order as early as on 30.11.2012 directing that if any appointment is made, it will be subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition, and the candidates so selected cannot claim equity. Referring to the said interim order passed, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the appointments made already are subject to the outcome of this writ petition, there will be no chaos or confusion, as it is sought to be projected by the learned Government Advocate.

7.I have considered the above submissions.

8.As I have already pointed out, what is under challenge is the illustration appended to G.O.Ms.No.145. The fact remains that by applying the illustration, selection was completed and appointments have already been made. At this stage, if it is declared by this Court that the said illustration is illegal and the same is quashed, then, all the appointments made earlier are to be set aside. Of course, it is true that in the interim order, this Court made an observation that any appointment made subsequent to the filing of the writ petition shall be subject to the outcome of this writ petition. But, at the same time, if this Court is inclined to set aside the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.145, and to withdraw the benefits given to various candidates in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.145, then, it becomes incumbent on the part of this Court to afford opportunity to all those selected candidates and to hear them, and then to pass appropriate orders. If, conceding to the request of the petitioner, the illustration appended to Rule-3 is examined and if any adverse order is passed, certainly, it will cause only chaos and confusion as several hundreds of candidates selected already and who are already working, will be disturbed. As I have already pointed out, that course cannot be done without affording opportunity to them. Therefore, at this length of time, in view of the subsequent development, I am not inclined to go into the correctness of G.O.Ms.No.145.

9.Apart from that, the illustration appended to G.O.Ms.No.145 has been now undone by G.O.Ms.No.40. Therefore the question is, whether G.O.Ms.No.40 can be retrospectively applied or not. That course is not possible, because if the illustration appended to G.O.Ms.No.40 is to be applied retrospectively for the advertisement dated 30.12.2010, in that event also, many of the selected candidates may have to be sent out of service and many new faces may have to be brought in. That will also create only chaos and confusion. That is the reason why I agree with the learned Government Advocate that G.O.Ms.No.40 is purely prospective in operation and therefore, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.40 cannot be extended to the petitioner.

10.In view of all the above, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.

Index  : Yes/No       25.07.2014
Internet : Yes/No

KM

To

1.The Secretary to Government,
   Government of Tamil Nadu,

Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

S.NAGAMUTHU, J.

KM

2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Near Government Dental Medical College, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

W.P.(MD)No.15383 of 2012 25.07.2014