Secretary, Tamilnadu Public Service Commission vs A.B. Natarajan & Ors. Etc.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.15-18 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5877-5878 OF 2014

SECRETARY, TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION …APPLICANT

VERSUS

A.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS WITH I.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A. No.5879/2014 I.A.Nos.23-24 IN C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 I.A.Nos.41-42 IN C.A.NO.5882-5883/2014 I.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5884/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2119/2014 IN C.A. No.5884/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014 CONMT. PET. (C) NO……/2014 (DIARY NO.31357/2014) IN I.A. NOS.15-16/2014 IN C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 CONMT. PET. (C) NO……/2014 (DIARY NO.31358/2014) IN I.A. NO.24/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014

R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014

R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 IN C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2016.10.20 16:46:22 IST Reason: JUDGMENT

2

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. These review petitions and applications have been filed

by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and some of the

employees of the State of Tamil Nadu, who had been appointed

in Tamil Nadu State Services, but by virtue of the judgment

dated 30th June, 2014 delivered by this Court in

C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, confirming the judgment delivered

by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal

Nos.1063 and 1287 of 2009 dated 4th March, 2011, their

services are to be terminated.

2. The case on hand has a chequered history, which has

been narrated in the judgment dated 30th June, 2014 delivered

by this Court in C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, which is sought to

be reviewed and therefore, we do not narrate the facts once

again.

3. Suffice it is to state that an examination was held by

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for selecting candidates

for certain Tamil Nadu State services and it was alleged that

some irregularities had been committed in examining the

answer books submitted by the candidates. In the

circumstances, a petition was filed in the High Court of Madras

challenging appointments of the candidates who had been

finally selected. The said petition had been rejected by the 3

learned Single Judge and the appeal filed against the order of

rejection had been allowed, whereby services of some of the

selected candidates had to be terminated. The said judgment of

the Division Bench was confirmed by this Court by virtue of the

judgment, which is sought to be reviewed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission, State of Tamil Nadu and the selected

candidates submitted that the judgment is required to be

reviewed for the reason that the selected candidates did not get

due opportunity before the High Court to represent their case

and the State of Tamil Nadu was not a party to the original

litigation, though it ought to have been joined because the

candidates who were admitted to the State services, whose

services were sought to be terminated, had been appointed by

the State of Tamil Nadu. It is also case of the applicants

praying for review of the judgment that certain methods, which

had been adopted by the High Court while coming to the final

conclusion arrived at, by virtue of the judgment delivered by the

Division Bench, were not proper and therefore, the selection

made by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission should not

have been set aside, especially when all the candidates who had

been selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and

who had been appointed to different State services by the State

of Tamil Nadu were in service for more than 7-8 years with due 4

efficiency and their effectiveness as officers was never

questioned even by their superiors or by the State of Tamil

Nadu. It was also submitted that grave injustice would be

caused to those officers working for several years as their

services will be terminated and they will not get any chance to

get any employment elsewhere as they have already crossed the

age limit for applying for any other government post by virtue of

afflux of time and that too for no fault on their part.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the original petitioners before the High Court submitted that

the judgment sought to be reviewed is just and proper and

therefore, there is no reason to disturb the said judgment,

especially in view of the fact that the review applications had

been filed after a long time and it would not be in the interest of

society to continue such officers, who had been improperly or

irregularly selected. According to the learned counsel, a

message must go to the society that no irregularity committed

while examining the answer books can be tolerated

6. Several submissions were made by the learned counsel

appearing for the original petitioners before the High Court with

regard to use of colour pencils, pens etc. by the candidates

while answering the question papers. Different views were

expressed by different counsel even at the stage when the

matter was pending before the High Court, when the High 5

Court had appointed court officers to examine the answer

books. Different views were expressed by different persons and

even different views were expressed when the answer books had

been examined at the instance of this Court by independent

examiners of Union Public Service Commission. Be that as it

may, at this stage, when the candidates who were appointed

and who have been working as State Officers for more than 10

years or so and when the examiners, who have rechecked the

answer books, have expressed little different views and in view

of the fact that the selected candidates did not get any

opportunity to represent their cases before the High Court as

very little time was given to them to appear before the High

Court, it would be just and proper to review the judgment.

7. It is not in dispute that notices had been issued by the

High Court to the selected candidates, which were made

returnable on 2nd March, 2011 and the matter had been finally

decided on 4th March, 2011. It is thus clear that sufficient time

was not given to the selected candidates to represent their

cases before the High Court and the said fact has been now

brought to the notice of this Court. Thus, the submission made

on behalf of the selected candidates are found to be correct and

in fact they did not get adequate opportunity to represent their

case effectively before the learned Single Judge.

8. Having overall view of the matter, in the interest of 6

administration as well as in the interest of the candidates, who

have already passed the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission and have been appointed by the State of

Tamil Nadu in State services before several years, in exercise of

powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct

that the candidates who have been working in different services

of Tamil Nadu State shall be continued in service,

notwithstanding any order passed by the Division Bench of

Madras High Court and confirmed by this Court.

9. We have adopted this course mainly for the reason

that the selected candidates did not get sufficient opportunity

to represent their case before the High Court, as stated

hereinabove and upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon

perusal of the record and report received from Tamil Nadu

Public Service Commission as well as Union Public Service

Commission, we also find that the mistakes, if any, committed

by the candidates who have now been selected, were very often

ignored and therefore, it would not be just and proper to take

such a harsh view in the matter so as to render several

reasonably good officers working for several years jobless.

Moreover, in any case, the original petitioners who had filed the

petition, are not likely to have any benefit because in any case

they had failed at the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission and therefore, there is no question of 7

giving any appointment to them at this stage.

10. For the aforestated reasons the review applications are

allowed only to the above extent by exercising our power under

Article 142 of the Constitution of India. All interlocutory

applications and the contempt petitions are also disposed of

accordingly.

.…………………….J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

……………………..J. (DIPAK MISRA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 15, 2016.

8

REVISED ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.2 SECTION XII (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I.A. Nos.15-18/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014

SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s)

VERSUS

A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)

WITH

I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A. No.5879/2014

I.A. Nos.23-24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014

I.A. Nos.41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014

I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 & R.P.(c) No.2119/2014 in CA. No.5884/2014

R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 in C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014

C.P.(C) D 31357/2014 IN I.A. Nos.15-16 in C.A. Nos. 5882-5883/2014

C.P.(C) D 31358/2014 IN I.A. No.24 in C.A. Nos. 5880-5881/2014

R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014

R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 in C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014

R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014

Date : 15/09/2016 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment.

For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AOR Ms. Nithya,Adv.

Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,AOR

Mr. V. Balachandran,AOR

Mr. V. G. Pragasam,AOR Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv.

9

Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv.

Mrs. Malavika J.,Adv.

Mr. Sureshan P.,AOR

Mr. S. Srinivasan,AOR

In RP.201-202/15 Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AOR

Mr. B. Balaji,AOR Mr. Muthu Vel Palani,Adv.

Mr. Aravind Athithan,Adv.

Mr. Naresh Kumar,AOR

Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran,AOR

Mr. C. K. Sasi,AOR

Mr. G. Ananda Selvam,Adv.

Mr. K. Mayil Samy,Adv.

Mr. Ram Sankar,Adv.

Mr. Y. Lokesh,Adv.

Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,AOR

Ms. T. Anamika,AOR

Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,AOR Ms. Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam,Adv.

Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv.

Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,AOR

Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,AOR

Mr. Anant Varma,Adv.

Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,AOR

Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,AOR

Mr. S. Muthu Krishnan,Adv.

Mr. Reegan S. Bell,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.

10

“...8. Having overall view of the matter, in the interest of administration as well as in the interest of the candidates, who have already passed the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and have been appointed by the State of Tamil Nadu in State services before several years, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct that the candidates who have been working in different services of Tamil Nadu State shall be continued in service, notwithstanding any order passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court and confirmed by this Court.

9. We have adopted this course mainly for the reason that the selected candidates did not get sufficient opportunity to represent their case before the High Court, as stated hereinabove and upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon perusal of the record and report received from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as well as Union Public Service Commission, we also find that the mistakes, if any, committed by the candidates who have now been selected, were very often ignored and therefore, it would not be just and proper to take such a harsh view in the matter so as to render several reasonably good officers working for several years jobless. Moreover, in any case, the original petitioners who had filed the petition, are not likely to have any benefit because in any case they had failed at the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and therefore, there is no question of giving any appointment to them at this stage.

10. For the aforestated reasons the review applications are allowed only to the above extent by exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. All interlocutory applications and the contempt petitions are also disposed of accordingly.”

(NARENDRA PRASAD) (SNEH BALA MEHRA) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed 'Reportable' Judgment is placed on the file)