On 29th February,The Madras High Court has canceled the provisional recruitment of 245 civil judges, citing a violation of reservation rules. The court emphasized the breach of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, directing the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to revise the list within two weeks.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has invalidated the provisional recruitment of 245 civil judges for the Tamil Nadu judicial service, citing a breach of reservation and roster rules. The order, passed on February 29 by a bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar, directs the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to publish a revised list within the next two weeks. This decision stems from a series of writ petitions filed by nine applicants, challenging the flawed recruitment process.
This matter revolves around the State’s failure to adhere to reservation norms outlined in Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The High Court emphasized that the selection list, issued by the TNPSC on February 16, 2024, is now deemed cancelled due to the disregard of the prescribed reservation guidelines.
According to the petitioners, the TNPSC issued a notification on June 1, 2023, inviting applications for the recruitment of 245 civil judges, including 92 “carried forward” vacancies. The notification specified that these carried forward vacancies must be filled by implementing reservation provisions in accordance with Section 27(f) of the 2016 Act, while the remaining 153 regular vacancies were to be filled following the general rule of reservation.
ALSO READ:Madras High Court Initiates Consultation on Reforming Judicial Vacations
Section 27(f) of the 2016 Act mandates that if reserved seats for categories such as Backward Class, Backward Class Muslims, Most Backward Classes (MBC), Denotified Tribes, Scheduled Caste, and Scheduled Tribes remain unfilled in a given year, they should not lapse but be carried forward and filled in the next recruitment cycle.
In this case, meritorious candidates under the MBC quota were confined to the seats reserved for MBCs and Denotified Tribes against the backlog or carry forward vacancies. This restricted their chances of being selected under the general vacancies, constituting a clear violation of the law.
The High Court stated-
“Violation of Section 27(f) of the Act 2016 is apparently visible on mere perusal of the methodology adopted for preparation of provisional select list.”
It stressed the need to redraw the provisional select list, placing top-ranking candidates from the merit list under the general category, in line with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in K Shobana’s case, particularly in paragraph 26 of the judgment.
The court directed the TNPSC to prepare a revised provisional list by accommodating top-ranking candidates under the general category in the merit list. Subsequently, candidates should be accommodated against the carried forward vacancies as per the specified quota for backlog vacancies, followed by placing the remaining candidates against the current vacancies while adhering to the Rules of reservation.
ALSO READ:Madras High Court Achieves Record-Breaking Case Clearance Rate in Last Five Years
Senior Counsel G Sankaran and Dakshayani Reddy, along with advocate Balan Haridas, represented the petitioner candidates. Advocates R Bharanidharan and B Vijay appeared for the respondents – TNPSC and the Registrar of the High Court.
The forthcoming revised list is anticipated to rectify the observed discrepancies and uphold the principles of justice and equality in the recruitment of civil judges for the Tamil Nadu judicial service.
[CASE TITLE : J.Sheena Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission]
[READ THE ORDER]
