The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs K. Shobana etc. etc.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the Single Judge is absolutely lucid and clear to the controversy and the conclusion. Single Judge set forth the controversy in the first paragraph itself, i.e., whether the candidates who secured high marks should have been fitted in the General Turn but have been fitted in MBC/DNC Quota for the last year, which in turn has deprived certain candidates of selection. It has been rightly noted that the entire confusion has arisen due to the wrong reading of provisions of Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which provides for reservation for appointment. Section 27(f) merely states that if the required number of candidates belonging to the community which fall under reservation are not available, then, the vacancies, for which selection could not be made in the current year, should be treated as backlog vacancies. In the subsequent recruitment, the backlog vacancies and the current vacancies for the particular community must be separately announced, and the direct recruitment must first accommodate the backlog vacancies and thereafter only, the current vacancies have to be accommodated. The provision had been read by the appellants as if the backlog vacancies must be filled in by MBC/DNC category candidates, irrespective of the merit of the candidate or the rank secured by him/her. The highest mark that was secured was 109 and, up to 90 marks, the candidates were fitted in General Turn and thus those candidates will have to be selected under the General Turn, irrespective of their community. It is these candidates who had been fitted in the backlog vacancy which has caused the problem. The Division Bench vide the impugned order also opined in the same terms and agreed with the interpretation of Section 27 of the Act by further observing that the proviso which contains the word “first” does not have any relation to the offer and placement of such reserved category candidates, including, Most Backward Classes who attain their position by way of merit in the open category/General Turn vacancies. [Paras 23, 24][1177-F-H; 1178-A-D]

1.2 This Court is in complete agreement with the view taken by the courts below as there really could not have been any cavil to the aforesaid. The principle that such of the reservation category candidates who make it on their own merit have to be adjusted against the general category candidates has not been in doubt or argued in view of the catena of judgments. Section 27(f) of the Act cannot be read in a manner to negate this very principle. It has been rightly pointed out by counsel for the respondents that the issue arising from seniority of filling the backlog vacancies first was not even urged in the courts below and was sought to be raised for the first time before this Court, and elaborately at that, which plea finally fizzled out, as it was conceded that there is no factual basis for the same. [Paras 25, 26][1178-D-G]

1.3 Section 27 deals with the reservation. It has nothing to do with the general candidates list/ General Turn vacancies. Such of the candidates who have made it on their own merit albeit, from reserved category, have not sought the benefit of the reservation. Thus, Section 27 of the Act would have nothing to do up to that point. Section 27 would apply only when the reservation principle begins, which is after filling up of the seats on merit. Thus, the word “first” would apply at that stage, i.e., the backlog vacancies have to be filled in first and the current vacancies to be filled in thereafter. At the stage when the general category seats are being filled, there is thus no question of any carry forward or current vacancies for reserved category arising at all. The manner of filling up the seats has been well enunciated in the judgment in K.R. Shanthi’s case by the Madras High Court itself and appears to have been consistently followed. May be the peculiarity of the situation arising in Chemistry subject (which is in question) gives rise to this problem in the current year and such a problem had not apparently arisen earlier. In fact, there is no manner of doubt after the latest judgment of this Court in Saurav Yadav & Ors. case which again refers to the steps which have to be taken to fill in those vacancies. The steps are clear in their terms : in the given facts of the case, application of those principles or steps would imply: a) the general merit list to be first filled in; (b) the backlog vacancies of the particular reserved category to be thereafter filled in “first”; and (c) the remaining reserved vacancies for the current year to be filled thereafter.

It appears that such a situation may not arise in the future as all backlog vacancies are stated to have been filled in. [Paras 27-29][1178-H; 1179-A-F]

Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92 : [2014] 2 SCR 1 – distinguished.

K.R. Shanthi vs. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Anr. (2012) 7 MLJ 241 –

approved.

Saurav Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1034 – relied on.

Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 785 : [2007] 8 SCR 972; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp

(3) SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454; R.K.

Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 : [1995] 2 SCR 35; Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 158; Ritesh R Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [1996] 2 SCR 695; Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 396 – referred to.