Partly allowed

Dr.N.Padmanaban v. The Secretary to the Government

Madras HC10 Jan 2023WA/23/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment modified impugned orders that dismissed writ petitions. The court directed respondent authorities to consider pending representations from deaf and dumb candidates seeking general quota appointment without awaiting vacancy exhaustion. The direction must align with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 201

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed to consider representations on merits within six weeks to appoint petitioners or pass appropriate orders under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Dr.N.Padmanaban Vs The Secretary to the Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.01.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶8

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶9

and

¶10

CMP. Nos. 315, 319, 320 and 334 of 2023

¶11

W.A. No. 23 of 2023:-

¶12

Dr. N. Padmanaban

¶13

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The Secretary to the Government Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

¶16

The Director

¶17

Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services No.571, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶18

The Chairman Tamilnadu Public Service Commission TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

¶19

... Respondents/Respondents

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

1/10

¶22

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶23

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patents Act against the Order dated 12.07.2022 passed in W.P. No. 17544 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

¶24

W.A. No. 24 of 2023:-

¶25

Dr. T.Kannapiran

¶26

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

The Secretary to the Government Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department Secretariat, Fort St. George

¶29

Chennai - 600 009.

¶30

The Director Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services No.571, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶31

The Chairman Tamilnadu Public Service Commission TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar Park Town, Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondents/Respondents

¶32

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patents Act against the Order dated 12.07.2022 passed in W.P. No. 17547 of 2022 on the file of this

¶33

Court.

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

2/10

¶36

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶37

W.A. No. 26 of 2023:-

¶38

Dr. J.Mathiyazhagan ... Appellant/Petitioner

¶39

Versus

¶40

The Secretary to the Government Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

¶41

The Director Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services No.571, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶42

The Chairman Tamilnadu Public Service Commission TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

¶43

... Respondents/Respondents

¶44

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patents Act against the Order dated 12.07.2022 passed in W.P. No. 17546 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

¶45

W.A. No. 33 of 2023:-

¶46

Dr. J.B.Simija ... Appellant/Petitioner

¶47

Versus

¶48

The Secretary to the Government Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department Secretariat, Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009.

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

3/10

¶51

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶52

2. The Director

¶53

Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services No.571, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶54

The Chairman Tamilnadu Public Service Commission TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Nagar Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

¶55

... Respondents/Respondents

¶56

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patents Act against the Order dated 12.07.2022 passed in W.P. No. 17535 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

¶57

For Appellant : Mr. C.Veera Raghavan (In all WPs) For Respondents : Mr. C.Kathiravan (R1 & R2) Special Government Pleader (In all WPs) Mr. I.Abrar Md. Abdullah (R3) (In all WPs)

¶58

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶59

(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶60

Aggrieved by the separate orders dated 12.07.2022 passed by the learned

¶61

Judge in W.P. Nos. 17535, 17544, 17546 and 17547 of 2022, the writ petitioners

¶62

have come up with these intra court appeals.

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

4/10

¶65

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶66

2.Originally, the appellants / writ petitioners preferred the aforesaid writ petitions, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their representations dated 17.06.2022, wherein, they requested to revise the quota reserved under deaf and dumb and convert it to the general quota as per the reservation system and to appoint them in the post of veterinary Assistant Surgeon (VAS).

¶67

3.However, the learned Judge disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions, recording the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents herein, by the orders impugned herein, the relevant passage of which is extracted below for ready reference:

¶68

"4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents submitted that there is no reservation quota under deaf and dumb and convert it to the General Quota as per the reservation system.

¶69

5. Inviting the attention of this Court, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents relied upon Section 34(2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, wherein it has been stated as follows:-

¶70

“34 (2) Where in any recruitment year any vacancy cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with benchmark disability or for any other sufficient reasons, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with benchmark disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the five categories and only when there is no person with disability available for the post in that

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶72

5/10

¶73

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶74

year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability.”

¶75

6. He further submitted that the said provision has given the mode of filling up the vacancy and the candidates not suitable for the said post, cannot be considered for the said post. After exhausting all the categories under Section 34(2) of the Act and if there is no eligible candidates are available, then petitioner's request will be considered for appointment other than a person with disability in accordance with Rules.

¶76

7. Therefore, in the light of the above submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, this Court cannot pass such a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's request without following the said provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner.”

¶77

The aforesaid orders of the learned Judge are impugned in these appeals.

¶78

4.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that without considering the fact that the representations of the petitioners are pending with the respondent authorities and the appellants sought a mandamus only to the limited extent of disposing the said representations, the learned Judge has erred in passing the orders impugned herein, which are arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the learned Judge, without giving any finding on the merits of the case, has disposed of the writ petitions, merely recording the submissions made on the side of the respondents

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

6/10

¶81

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶82

and hence, the orders passed by him are liable to be set aside. Ultimately, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the respondent authorities to dispose of the representations submitted by the appellants, in the light of the material documents produced by them.

¶83

5.It is fairly submitted on the side of the respondents that the representations of the appellants / writ petitioners will be considered and appropriate orders be passed on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be stipulated by this court.

¶84

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶85

7.It is seen in the orders impugned in these writ appeals that before the writ court, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents categorically submitted that after exhausting all the categories under section 34(2) of the Act and if there is no eligible candidates are available, then the petitioners' request will be considered for appointment other than a person with disability in accordance with Rules. While recording the same, the learned Judge, instead of directing the respondent authorities to consider the

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

7/10

¶88

W.A. Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 33 of 2023

¶89

representations of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, has erroneously dismissed the writ petitions. To that extent, the orders of the learned Judge are liable to be interfered with.

¶90

8.In view of the above and also taking note of the limited relief now sought by the learned counsel for the appellants, which has been agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, this court modifies the orders of the learned Judge, which are impugned herein, by directing the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the appellants / writ petitioners, on merits and also in the light of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

¶91

9.Accordingly, all these writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶92

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No

¶93

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 10.01.2023

¶94

Maya

¶95

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶96

8/10