Administrative Inaction Imposing Undue Hardship On Deserving Candidates Without Their Fault Is Unreasonable: Madras HC
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench dismissed the Writ Appeals filed by the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) against the Single Judge's Order.
The Madras High Court observed that an administrative inaction imposing undue hardship on deserving individuals without their fault is neither reasonable nor justifiable.
The Madurai Bench observed thus in a batch of Writ Appeals filed by the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) against the Common Order of the Single Judge.
A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice A.D. Maria Clete remarked, “Despite more than a decade has passed since the issuance of this memorandum, the appellants and the State Government have shown complete inertia in amending the relevant provisions to align with its clarifications. This indifference has left candidates like the writ petitioners in a perpetual state of uncertainty. The absence of clear rules has not only forced them into unwarranted litigation but has also deprived them of the opportunity to join higher posts, even when selected on merit. Such administrative inaction, which imposes undue hardship on deserving individuals without any fault on their part, is neither reasonable nor justifiable.”
Senior Advocate P. Wilson appeared for the Appellants while Advocates M. Ajmal Khan and V. Thirumal appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Appellants challenged the Single Judge’s decision, directing to consider the entitlement of the Respondents to appointment under the Ex-serviceman category for Group II A posts, based on merit and to permit their participation in the ensuing stages of the selection process. The Respondents i.e., ex-servicemen had applied for various positions notified by TNPSC under separate notifications and they successfully secured posts. They joined the respective services, however, the results for Group II A services were published much later wherein the Respondents were also found to have been selected. Considering their prior appointments, this situation gave rise to competing claims regarding the Respondents’ eligibility for participation in the subsequent stages of selection process for Group II A posts.
The question arose as to whether the Respondents, appointed to Group IV services under the ex-serviceman category, are eligible to claim the ex-serviceman concession for recruitment to Group II-A services. The Appellants contended that the Respondents were precluded from claiming the ex-serviceman concession a second time. According to the Appellants, the first proviso to Section 3(j) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 explicitly bars ex-servicemen, who have already been recruited to any service, from claiming the benefit of the concession for subsequent recruitments. The stand of the Appellants was challenged by the Respondents. The Single Judge found merit in the Respondents’ challenge and permitted their participation. This led to the Appeals before the Division Bench.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “While there is no dispute over the legal position regarding the mandatory nature of recruitment notifications and procedures, the issue in the present case is not one of procedural compliance but of interpretation. Specifically, whether the bar under Section 3(j) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, applies to claims made before recruitment remains ambiguous.”
The Court said that the TNPSC notification merely replicates the statutory language of Section 3(j) but fails to address the nuances of candidates applying for multiple posts simultaneously and claiming the concession before their recruitment to a lower post.
“… the Central Government's Official Memorandum dated 14.08.2014 provides a clear framework for such situations. It explicitly allows ex-servicemen to apply for multiple vacancies before joining civil employment and permits them to avail themselves of reservations for subsequent employment, provided they submit a self-declaration listing the posts for which they had applied. This progressive clarification ensures that candidates are not penalized for procedural delays or administrative ambiguities, aligning with the principles of justice and fairness”, it observed.
The Court added that the TNPSC notification, however, does not address whether the bar under Section 3(j) applies to candidates who had already submitted applications and claimed the concession before their recruitment. Furthermore, it said that the ambiguity in the notification creates unnecessary hardship for ex-servicemen candidates, forcing them into a cruel dilemma: whether to decline a lower post with immediate prospects or forego the opportunity for a higher post with uncertain outcomes.
“Such situations are especially unjust in cases where delays in publishing results, over which the candidates have no control, exacerbate the issue. The appellants failed to account for these adverse consequences, leaving candidates in a state of avoidable confusion”, it added.
The Court also explained that the entitlement to apply under Section 3(r) is fundamentally distinct from the entitlement to avail of the ex-serviceman concession under Section 3(j) and the said provision is specific and benevolent, crafted to acknowledge the unique contributions of ex-servicemen and to extend opportunities for their transition into civil employment.
“This concession is carefully tailored to apply only under certain circumstances and within defined timeframes, underscoring its special nature and targeted application. … It is concluded that Section 3(r) of the Act is not applicable to the facts. The bar under the proviso to Section 3(j) does not apply for the writ petitioners, as they had already claimed or applied for the concession before joining the Group IV post. The bar is relevant only for claims made after joining the civil post, as discussed above”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeals and refused to interfere with the findings of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. R. Saravanan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:217)
