WP/39665/2024 of DR. P. PREMA Vs THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU on 1 October 2026

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has participated in the recruitment conducted for Veterinary Assistant Surgeon under Notification No. 32 of 2019 dated 18-11-2019. The 3rd respondent issued a selection list on 19-10-2020. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the reservation of SCA(W), she become No.1 in the reserve list as per the final selection list dated 01-02-2021. The learned counsel would contend that the person who selected under reservation SCA(W) was one Sangeetha whereas she did not join in the post and participated in the Research Assistant recruitment and got selected on 16-6- 2021. Later on, she joined the above service on 21-06-2021. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that since the person, who selected under SCA(W), joined in the different service, the petitioner being number one in the reserve list for SCA(W), she is entitled to be appointed in the said vacancy. Hence, he seeks writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon post.

2. The said contention was totally objected by learned Standing Counsel (TNPSC) for the 3rd respondent and contended that one Sangeetha was selected under SCA(W) category. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that as per the Notification No. 32 of 2019, 1141 vacancies were notified for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, out of which 1111 vacancies have been filled leaving 30 vacancies carry forward to the next recruitment due to paucity of the candidates under differently abled category. The learned counsel further submitted that after the said Sangeetha had not joined the post, since there were higher in number of women candidates under SCA through the selection in the SCA(General) category, as per para 3 of the Office Order No.134 dated 12-11- 2020 and in order to comply the court direction in the women reservation batch cases, a person who is on the higher merit under SCA(General) was considered for appointment. It is also his contention that subsequent to the above recruitment notification, another recruitment under Notification No.34 of 2022 dated 18-11-2022 had been finalised and selection list had also been forwarded to the Government. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner has become infructuous. To support his contention, the learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in batch of WP.Nos. 6201 of 2013 dated 07-09-2022 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785.

3. In addition to the above contention, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the petitioner has no vested right and that even according to the notification dated 12-11-2020, the reserve list will be in force till the regular list is drawn up for subsequent recruitment and in this case, according to the counter statement of the 3rd respondent, the selection list has already been forwarded on 18-11-2022. It is also his contention that as per the above notification, mere presence in the reserve list will not confer any vested right as the notification stipulates that the right is vested with the Government to operate the reserve list or not. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

5. The rank list of the petitioner is not in challenge. She was No.1 in the reserve list for SCA(W). It is also not in dispute that Sangeetha was selected under SCA(W) but did not join and that reservation namely SCA(W) become vacant.

6. Now, the point to be considered is, whether any vacancy arises in SCA(W) category has to be filled up only through the reserve list of the same category or has any other way?

7. From the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, for SC (Arunthathiyar) category, 25 vacancies were reserved out of which 30% is to be given for women which comes around 8 vacancies. It is their contention that while selecting SCA (General), there were more number of women beyond their 30% reservation. On account of the same, they decided to allot a post reserved in SCA(W), in accordance with the merit of the SCA

(General). While doing so, one Mohanavel, whose rank is 1140 which is well ahead of this petitioner and Sangeetha was selected in the reservation earmarked for SCA(W).

8. Here the point is when SCA(W) had already been selected, can the recruiting agency on their own arbitrarily alter the woman reservation? In this regard, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in batch of WP.Nos. 6201 of 2013 dated 07-09-2022 wherein in paragraph 36 and 37 observed as follows:- “36. The procedure adopted by the respondents in arranging the reservation for female candidates is even ignoring the illustration given by the Apex Court which requires accounting for the female candidates even who find place in the Open Category to address the list of Open Category. It is, however, with a clarification that if a female candidate of reserved category finds place in the order of merit, while arranging the list of Open Category, it would not be counted to wards her reservation for social reservation, but if a female candidat e finds place in the list arranged while giving social reservation, then she would be counted towards the reservation meant for the female candidates in her own category of social reservation, as it is now arranged for each category, i.e., Open Category, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class Muslims, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, etc.

37. The aforesaid exercise has not been undertaken by the respondents while making appointment to various posts, rather they have virtually arranged reservation for women vertically, which is not permissible under law and has been illustrated by the petitioners showing 120 excess appointments to women candidates. The affidavit given by the respondents also shows that they did not account those number of female candidates who could find place in the list of Open Category, SC, ST, MBC, etc., though as per the judgment of the Apex Court, they should have been taken into account to find out the shortfall of female candidates, if any, to extend the benefit of reservation only to the extent of shortfall”

9. The above judgment had relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Kumar Daria case cited supra. According to the above ratio, though the recruiting agency has such power, still the point to be addressed is having selected a women under SCA, whether the same would be changed in the midway of selection. In this regard, it is relevant to mention the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. According to his submissions, as per the recruitment notification, there is a specific condition that the candidates placed in the reserve list has no vested right and it is for the department either to proceed with the reserve list or to go ahead with the next recruitment.

10. In this case, in the midway, the 3rd respondent had decided to go for a SCA(General) since there were sufficient women qua more than 30% in the overall social reservation of SC(Arunthathiyar), hence appointed one Mohanavel under SCA(General). Since this being a public employment, without compromising the social reservation, merit needs to be given priority. In the case on hand, one Mohanavel, who is a SC(Arunthathiyar) candidate, secured rank of 1140 over and above both the Sangeetha and this petitioner. Therefore this Court is of the firm view that the selection of the Mohanavel could not be found faulted in the absence of any malafide on the part of the respondent. Admittedly, it it is not the case of the petitioner that there were malafide in selection of Mr.Mohanavel under SCA(General)

11. Therefore, in such view of the above factual position, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes nr To

1. The Principal Secretary To Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying And Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Chennai

2. The Commissioner Of Animal Husbandry Dairying And Fisheries Department, Nandanam Chennai 600 035

3. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Represented By Its Secretary, Park Town, V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai 600 003

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 39665 of 2024 and WMP.No.42957 of 2024 01-10-2026