WP/12215/2024 of V.JAISHANKAR Vs THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR on 22 September 2026

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 23.04.2024, by which the petitioner was removed from service.

2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Field Assistant on 19.02.2016 and his name was placed on the promotional panel for the post of Surveyor on 24.05.2019. Similarly, the petitioner’s name found place in the subsequent consecutive panels dated 15.02.2021, 23.02.2022 and 10.02.2023, for the post of Surveyor. While so, the petitioner completed eight years of service in the respondents’ Department as on 19.02.2023. However, on 18.12.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondents calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.231 of 2024, wherein this Court, by an order dated 09.01.2024, set aside the said show cause notice and directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Pursuant to the said direction, after conducting an enquiry, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 23.04.2024, reiterating their earlier stand and terminating the petitioner from service with effect from 23.04.2024 AN. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was recruited after following all the due procedure. Based upon a paper publication, the petitioner applied for the post of Field Assistant and competed along with numerous other candidates. After conducting a proper enquiry and following all the rules and regulations, the respondents appointed the petitioner to the post of Field Assistant on 19.02.2016. However, the respondents cancelled the appointment order on account of non following of the communal roster. He would further submit that according to the respondents, the petitioner was appointed in the communal rotation reserved for Destitute Widows belonging to the Most Backward Classes (MBC). Though such an erroneous appointment had taken place, the respondents did not take any disciplinary proceedings against the appointing authority, but instead, after the petitioner had served for more than eight years, all of a sudden, terminated his services. He would also submit that there is no proof available with the respondents to the effect that the availability of any destitute widow (MBC) or MBC women candidate, so as to say that the appointment of the petitioner is illegal. Hence, he prayed to allow this writ petition.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785, which was followed by this Court under a similar set of facts in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.28857 of 2019 etc., dated 03.09.2021.

6. The said contentions were totally objected by the learned Government Advocate, who contended that a notification was published in the vernacular daily newspapers on 21.11.2015, inviting applications for the post of Field Assistant in the Survey Department for Krishnagiri District. The prescribed qualification for the said post was eighth standard and the candidates were required to read and write in Tamil and possess the ability to ride two wheeler. According to the notified vacancies, four vacancies of Field Assistant in District Survey Office, Krishnagiri, were to be filled up in the following categories: (1) Backward Classes (other than the BC Muslims)(P), (2) General Turn (NP)(W)(DW), (3) Scheduled Castes (P) and (4) Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities (NP)(W)(DW). In pursuance to the said notification, 121 applicants applied for the post and out of whom, 87 were rejected and the remaining 34 candidates participated in the interview. After the completion of the interview, the petitioner along with three other persons was selected.

7. It is also the contention of the learned Government Advocate that even according to the appointment order, it was clearly stated that the appointment was purely temporary and are liable to be terminated for want of vacancy and the selected persons has to submit their medical fitness certificate. Since the Department subsequently came to know that the appointing authority had not followed the communal roster, they conducted an enquiry and found that the appointment of the petitioner was made against the communal rotation reserved for MBC (NP)(W)(DW) category, namely for Destitute Widows belonging to the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities. Therefore, the very selection of the petitioner, being a male, against the reservation of MBC (NP)(W)(DW) would affect the legitimate rights of the eligible destitute widows belonging to MBC and DNC, who were otherwise qualified for employment in the said communal roster. Therefore, he contend that since the very initial appointment is defective and not in accordance with the communal roster and the appointing authority did not follow the required procedures, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of this writ petition.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side.

9. Most of the facts are not in dispute. The only disputed fact is that the petitioner was appointed in the communal reservation of MBC (NP)(W) (DW). In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process only based on the wide publication given in the Tamil daily newspapers. After the said publication, 121 applications were received by the respondents, out of which, only 34 candidates were selected for the interview. Though the learned Government Advocate would strongly oppose the petitioner's case, he is not in a position to demonstrate the actual availability of any candidate under the category of destitute widow belonging to MBC or women belonging to MBC.

10. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, wherever a post is reserved for women, it must be filled only by a woman, but if no suitable and qualified women are available, then male candidates may also be appointed. Section 26 (2) of the Act would state that if no qualified and suitable destitute widow is available, then the turn so set apart for destitute widows shall go to the women (other than destitute widows) belonging to the respective category. He also relies on sub- section (5) of Section 26 of the Act, which says that if a qualified and suitable woman candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,

Backward Class Muslims, Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes or Denotified Communities or General turn is not available for selection and appointment in the turn allotted to women in the cycle, then the turn so allotted shall go to a male candidate within the respective category.

11. Admittedly, the communal roster at which the petitioner was appointed was MBC(NP)(W)(DW). Therefore, in the absence of any proof demonstrating the availability of either a destitute widow belonging to MBC category or an MBC women candidate, the respondents cannot find fault with the initial appointment of the petitioner, in virtue of Section 26(5) of the Act. At the maximum, it may be construed as irregular appointment.

12. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate would submit that if there is no suitable candidate available in the respective communal roster, then it is the duty of the appointing authority to keep those vacancies as backlog vacancies. Therefore, even in the absence of any destitute widow belonging to MBC category or women belonging to MBC category, the initial appointment of the petitioner becomes illegal.

13. This Court is not in a position to agree with the said submissions, especially in the peculiar facts of this case. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has submitted any false certificate or made any misrepresentation so as to get the appointment. Even according to the respondents, there is no allegation of collusion or any other illegality against the petitioner. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the termination of the petitioner after a period of eight years, on account of a mistake committed by the appointing authority, cannot be justified, which according to this Court would directly impinge upon the right to life of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

14. Apart from that, this Court deems it relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria, supra, wherein it was held that during recruitment, though there is special reservation for women, if in a general selection a sufficient number of women have been selected, there is no necessity to again special reservation. This position was also followed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.28857 of 2019 etc., dated 03.09.2021, under similar circumstances, namely, in respect of a similar termination of appointment in Coimbatore District. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: “13. The manner in which, horizontal reservation has to be worked out has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria VS. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others, (2007) 8 SCC 785. In para 9 of the decision, the Court held as under:-

9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of

vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are “vertical reservations”. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are “horizontal reservations”. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , R.K. Sabharwal v.State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481], Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] and Ritesh R. Sah v.Dr. Y.L. Yamul[(1996) 3 SCC 253] .) But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of “Scheduled Caste women”. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example:

a. If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC woman candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC woman candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four woman SC candidates. (But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four woman candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that “SC women” have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.)”

15. Therefore, in the case in hand, according to the counter statement, there is not an iota of allegation to find fault with the petitioner. Every paragraph of the respondents' counter statement deals with the delinquency of the appointing authority. Even the said delinquency is not on any other aspect but the irregularity in following the communal roster. Though such dereliction of duty on the part of the appointing authority may affect the eligible candidates who fall under MBC (NP)(W)(DW) category, in the absence of any evidence before this Court regarding the details of the candidates under the above category who participated in the recruitment, this Court is of the firm view that the selection of the petitioner will in no way affect any other destitute widow or woman belonging to the Most Backward Classes in the present recruitment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 deserves to be interfered with.

16. Accordingly, the impugned order in Na.Ka. D1/ 4841/ 2023 dated 23.04.2024 is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in his original post within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

17. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits during the period of his termination, by following the principle of ‘no work, no pay’. However, the period of termination shall be counted only for the purpose of continuity of service.

18. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 22-09-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes/No Ham

To

1. The Additional Director Of Survey And Land Records, Survey House Chepauk, Chennai-05.

2. The Regional Deputy Director, Of Survey And Lands Records, Coimbatore.

3. The Assistant Director Cum Personnel Assistant Of District Collector, Of Survey And Land Records, Krishnagiri

4. The Assistant Director, Of District Employment Office, Krishnagiri.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. ham WP No. 12215 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.13307 & 32262 of 2024 22-09-2026