WP/7174/2025 of K.MADALAIMUTHU Vs THE SECRETARY TO UPSC on 25 August 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the order of the Union Public Service Commission dated 17.08.2018, not recommending the name of the writ petitioner for inclusion for conferring Indian Administrative Service in the select list of 2007.

2. The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner was appointed as direct recruit District Registrar in the year 1989 in the Registration Department of

Government of Tamil Nadu. He retired as Additional Inspector General of Registration on 31.12.2013. Even during his inception in the initial cadre, his seniority was not fixed appropriately and he approached the Court of law for settling his seniority in the post of District Registrar. The petitioner succeeded in re-fixing his seniority pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which is a reported case i.e. K.Madalaimuthu and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others1.

3. The name of the writ petitioner was not sponsored to Indian Administrative Service initially during the year 2007 and in the subsequent year 2009. The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Apex Court granted liberty to approach the Court having jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.565 of 2011. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the official respondents to consider the name of the writ petitioner for inclusion in the select list of the year 2007 for appointment by selection to Indian Administrative Service of Tamil Nadu cadre. State preferred a writ petition in WP No.16147 of 2011 and it was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and a SLP was filed by the State, which also came to be dismissed in the year 2012. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu addressed a letter to the Union Public Service Commission along with a proposal to consider the name of the 12006 (6) SCC 558

writ petitioner herein to appoint him to Indian Administrative Service. The Review Selection Committee reconsidered the case of the writ petitioner and found that the last person considered for inclusion in the select list Mr.P.Muthuveeran secured 71 marks, but the writ petitioner Mr.K.Madalaimuthu secured 69 marks and therefore, his name cannot be considered for inclusion in the select list of the year 2007.

4. Again the writ petitioner challenged the said decision of the Review Selection Committee. Several rounds of litigations were instituted on more than one occasion, and the Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court directed the Union Public Service Commission to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner for inclusion of his name in the select list of the year 2007 for appointment by selection to Indian Administrative Service of Tamil Nadu cadre. Even during the further reconsideration, the same decision was taken by the Review Selection Committee based on the marks secured by the writ petitioner and he could not able to secure selection for appointment to Indian Administrative Service of Tamil Nadu cadre by including his name in the select list of the year 2007. The last decision taken by the Union Public Service Commission dated 17.08.2018 is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Dr.A.E.Chellaiah would strenuously contend that the word “reconsider” was misconstrued by the competent authority. An error crept in even while considering the service records of the writ petitioner. The marks awarded to the petitioner based on his service records are not only improper, but based on the assessment made by a Junior Officer. Therefore, the reconsideration must be done in entirety right from reassessment of the service records of the writ petitioner and by awarding the marks afresh. He would draw the attention of this Court with reference to the judgments and plead that the writ petitioner is having clean records of service and allowed to retire from service on 31.12.2013. Right from his initial appointment, he was fighting for fixation of seniority in a rightful manner and thereafter, continued his litigative process for appointment by selection to Indian Administrative Service of Tamil Nadu cadre. The long legal battle underwent by the writ petitioner is to be taken into consideration in the context of the fact that the assessment of the service records were not made in consonance with the established principles.

6. Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for R1 and R2 and Mr.AR.Suresh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State Government would oppose by stating that the writ petition per se is not maintainable and to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches. That apart, the present writ petition has been instituted without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal which is the Court of first instance having jurisdiction and on that ground also the writ petition is liable to be rejected. The assessment was made based on the service records by the State

Government and the Review Selection Committee consisting a senior most IAS officer from the Tamil Nadu cadre participated in the Review Selection Committee. The reassessment was done in pursuance to the directions issued by the Courts. More than one occasion, the case of the writ petitioner was reconsidered. However, the Review Section Committee found that there is no reason to select the writ petitioner on account of the fact that he scored lesser marks than that of the marks scored by the last candidate who was selected in the year 2007 i.e.,Mr.P.Muthuveeran. That apart, the writ petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2013. The order of the Review Selection Committee was passed on 17.08.2018, but the writ petition was filed in the year 2025, after a lapse of about seven years from the date of passing the order without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. For all these reasons, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

7. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the parties to the lis on hand.

8. No doubt, there is a force on the contentions raised by Dr.A.E.Chellaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He would make an attempt to redefine the directions of this Court directing the authorities to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner. Reconsideration does not mean that the Review Selection Committee must proceed based on the marks already awarded, but the award of marks by itself ought to have been reconsidered in the context of its correctness. The Division Bench of this Court made a finding in order dated 28.02.2023, passed in Cont P. Nos.593 and 594 of 2019. In paragraph No.21, this Court made an observation that, “Thus, we find that the conduct of the UPSC in adopting 42 marks that was awarded in the said Review Selection Committee meeting held on 17.08.2018 cannot be found fault with and the same is in tune with the order passed by this Court”.

9. The query raised by Dr.A.E.Chellaiah, learned Senior Counsel has been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the above order passed in the contempt petitions. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for this Court to redefine the definition for the term reconsideration and moreso, the said order of the Division Bench passed in the contempt petitions was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by an order dated 22.09.2023.

10. In respect of the order passed by the Union Public Service Commission, an aggrieved person has to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the present case, the petitioner has directly filed the writ petition before this Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition was filed in pursuance to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. However, the order dated 17.08.2018 came to be challenged in the present writ petition in the year 2025, after a lapse of seven years. The writ petitioner retired on 31.12.2013. More than two occasions, deliberations were made by the Review Selection Committee. The issues

raised by the petitioner were answered and reconsideration was also done by the Review Selection Committee in pursuance to the directions issued by the Courts. Thus, the writ petition by itself is filed beyond the reasonable time and to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Union Public Service Commission Vs M. Sathiya Priya and others2 held as follows: “The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the Courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the Court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body, i.e., the Selection Committee.” 2(2018) 15 SCC 796

12. The High Court is not expected to substitute the view of the Selection Committee in such matters. In the present case, the case of the writ petitioner was reconsidered more than one occasion and the Review Selection Committee reconsidered by verifying the service records of the writ petitioner and found that he is not suitable for inclusion in the select list of the year 2007 since the last candidate who was selected scored 71 marks, but the writ petitioner scored 69 marks. This being the reasoning given by the Review Selection Committee, no further deliberation is required in respect of the issues raised in the writ petition. The petitioner has repeatedly raised similar grounds, which were answered by this Court during earlier round of litigations.

13. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay and latches and on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 25-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sli

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. SLI To

1. The Secretary To UPSC Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi-110 069.

2. The Joint Secretary And The Selection Committee For Selection To IAS, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi-110 069.

3. The Secretary Department Of Personnel And Training Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

4. The Chief Secretary Government Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

5. The Secretary Public (Special-A) Department, Government Of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.

6. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai-104.

25-08-2026