@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Both writ petitions involve common facts and identical question of law and as such, both are being considered and decided by a common order.
2. The facts in brief are :
The petitioners participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service pursuant to the earlier notification dated 21.01.2012. The petitioners participated in the written examination and also were called for interview. As per the list, the petitioners were in the list down-below. However, they could not be selected.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, vacancy, which arose on the basis of the non selection of the petitioners, has not been counted as vacancy in the current notification No. 15/2014 dated 26.08.2014. The petitioners have become over aged. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners belong to backward class community. The petitioners could have been appointed against the earlier vacancy, however, on account of the subsequent notification, they could not be appointed. The notification also does not disclose as to whether all vacancies have been counted and roster system has been followed. Thus, the instant notification dated 26.08.2014 deserves to be quashed as being arbitrary and unreasonable.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3 submits that there are 162 vacancies notified in the notification dated 26.08.2014, including 7 carried forward vacancies. The 7 carried forward vacancies were also included in the present notification. They are:
Further, as per Rule 21(d) of Part II of the General Rules, if qualified and suitable women candidate belonging to SC, ST, BC, MBC/DC or GT is not available for selection for appointment in the turn allotted for women in the cycle, the turn shall go to a male candidate within the respective category. Thus, according to the rule provisions and Government Orders, the carried forward vacancies for ST(Women) was notified as ST (General) and MBC/DC (Women) (Ortho) was notified as MBC/DC (General)(Ortho) and ST(PSTM) was notified as ST(General). Therefore, the 7 carried forward vacancies were notified in the notification dated 26.8.2014 as under :
|
GT(G) (Blind) |
2 |
|
MBC/DC(G)(Deaf) |
1 |
|
MBC/DC(G)(Ortho) |
1 |
|
ST(G) |
3 |
|
Total |
7 |
5. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the records.
6. The case of the petitioners is based on their purported selection pursuant to the previous examination, which according to them, could not be filled. A perusal of the previous notification dated 21.01.2012, it is manifest that total 185 posts of Civil Judges were available for selection. Out of 185 posts, 6 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes (Arunthathiyars on preferential basis), 49 posts have been reserved for Backward Class (other than Backward Class Muslims), 37 posts were reserved for Most Backward Classes and Denotified communities and 6 seats for Backward Class Muslims. The petitioners have not pointed out any irregularity or illegality in the allocation of seats for various reserved categories.
7. A direction cannot be issued to appoint the petitioners against the vacancy if any available in the last selection. Further, if the petitioners were beyond the maximum age fixed this year against the age prescribed in the notification, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as no provision has been brought to the notice of this court to consider their case for relaxation.
8. Further, the reliance of the petitioners made in
9. The petitions are vague and dehors of substantial relevant materials. The petitioners are unable to make out a case that deliberately all vacancies have not been considered for selection. Both writ petitions are devoid of merits and as such, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
