Allowed

M.Sadasivam, v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC22 Jul 2024WP/4651/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that selecting only SC/ST candidates for cook vacancies ignored the 69% reservation mandate of the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act 1993, which allocates specific percentages to Backward Classes. The selection was declared arbitrary and illegal, and the writ petition was allowed. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the selection and appointment of only SC/ST candidates for 80 cook vacancies was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

M.Sadasivam, Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 22.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.4651 of 2016 &

¶7

W.M.P.Nos. 4031, 4032 & 38349 of 2016

¶8

1.M.Sadasivam

¶9

2.K.Arumugham 3.M.Pachamuthu

¶10

4.P.Selvan ...Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Director, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶14

1/13

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶17

3.The District Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer, Collector's Office, Salem, Salem District.

¶18

4.The District Collector, Salem, Salem District.

¶19

5.The District Employment Officer, Office of the District Employment Exchange, Salem District, Salem. ...Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the selection and the appointments made by the respondents 3 and 4 for the posts of 80 cooks in the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Hostels and Schools under the control of the 3^rd respondent in Salem District pursuant to the Notification dated 21.10.2015 issued by the 4^th respondent in Na.Ka.36263/2011/D4 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr. K.Selvaraj

¶22

For Respondents : Mr. V.Jeevagiridharan Additional Government Pleader.

¶23

2/13

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Challenging the selection of only SC / ST candidates for the 80 vacancies for the post of Cooks in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Hostels and Schools, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to declare the selection and appointment made by the 3^rd and the 4^th respondents for the post of 80 cooks as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The facts in a nutshell are as follows.

¶28

The petitioners had registered their qualifications with the District Employment exchange on various dates. On 30.01.2015, the 3^rd respondent had called for eligible candidates from the 5^th respondent to fill up 80 vacancies for the post of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Hostels and Schools. The petitioner would submit that from an article published in the Tamil Daily “Dinakaran” in its issue dated 30.01.2015, the petitioners came to learn that the 5^th respondent had only sponsored candidates belong to SC / SC to fill up the existing vacancies of 80 cooks.

¶29

3/13

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶32

The petitioners would submit that they belong to the Most

¶33

Backward Class and have obtained certificates showing they are cooks from various restaurants / hotels. They have registered their qualification with the 5^th respondent for over 10 years. They were also eligible and qualified candidates who have been waiting for over 10 years. Therefore, this action of the respondents apart from being totally arbitrary and unreasonable is also against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

The petitioners would submit that they had filed W.P.No.5370

¶35

of 2015 for a mandamus directing the respondents to call for all the eligible candidates including petitioners who belong to Backward class

¶36

/ Most Backward Class and also from the SC / ST community from the 5^th respondent. By order dated 02.03.2015, notice of motion was ordered and an interim order was issued stating that the selection made would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition.

¶37

4/13

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶40

The petitioners would submit that the 5^th respondent in the counter affidavit filed in the aforesaid Writ Petition had admitted that on instructions of the 3^rd respondent, he had only forwarded the list of 57 persons belonging to SC community and 23 ST candidates to fill up 80 vacancies. The petitioner would submit that the respondents have gone ahead and appointed only the persons belonged to SC / ST community to the aforesaid vacancy of 80 cooks. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶41

The 3^rd respondent had filed a counter affidavit for and on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 4, wherein it was contended that in the notification which was published on 21.10.2015, it was clearly indicated that preference would be given to SC / ST candidates while selecting the post of cooks and other vacancy. This was on account of guidelines in G.O.RT.21, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department.

¶42

5/13

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶45

The respondents would submit that this was on account of the

¶46

fact that only persons belonging to SC / ST come forward for cooking in the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Hostels and Schools. The petitioners are all belonging to the Most Backward Class community and the reservation also is not applicable to them as per G.O.RT.21, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department.

¶47

The respondents would further submit that the District level Selection Committee was constituted and they have selected the eligible candidates for the post of cooks. The respondents would submit that since the press release clearly mentions that preference would be given to candidates from SC / ST communities, the petitioners had applied knowing fully well about the above condition and having applied so, they cannot now turn around and question the same. The respondents would submit that the interview was conducted following the Government Rules and Regulations and competent

¶48

persons have been appointed.

¶49

6/13

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶52

The 5^th respondent had filed a counter in which they have clearly stated that as per request of the 3^rd respondent, the 5^th respondent had forwarded the list of 57 candidates belonged to SC community and 23 candidates belonged to the ST community to fill up 80 vacancies. The 3^rd respondent had confirmed the community reservation and qualification in their letter dated 22.12.2014 and on 06.02.2015, the 5^th respondent has sponsored only those person who belong to the aforesaid communities and consequently they were not in a position to sponsor the petitioners' name.

¶53

Mr. K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the non selection of the petitioners to the post of Cooks in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Hostels and Schools is in total violation of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or posts in the Service under the State) Act 1993 hereinafter called the Act. Therefore, the said selection

¶54

7/13

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶57

has to definitely be declared as illegal.

¶58

Mr. V.Jeevagiridharan, Additional Government Pleader

¶59

representing the Government would submit that even as early as in the year 1986, the Government had issued a Government Order to appoint all cooks in the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Hostels and Schools on a temporary basis. The Government had considered the fact that the persons working as cooks in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Hostels and Schools cannot be included in the basic service as their scale of pay is not covered by the scale of pay allowed to the post coming under the Basic Service Rules. Therefore, the Director of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare had framed and submitted a rules for the post of cooks to the Government. Thereafter, the Government had proceeded to issue adhoc rules for the post of cooks working in the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Hostels and Schools

¶60

The Rules contemplated that the general and special rules

¶61

applicable to the holders of the permanent post in the Tamil Nadu Adi

¶62

8/13

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶65

Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Subordinate Service would apply to the holders of the temporary posts in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department. The appointment to the post would be made by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer from any other department. Qualifications were also provided whereunder it was stated that preference would be given to those belonging to SC / SC community. He would submit that it is following this Government Order that the posts of cooks have been filled up.

¶66

Heard the learned counsels on the either side.

¶67

The Government Order referred to by the learned Additional

¶68

Government Pleader only stated that the persons from SC / ST should

¶69

be given preference for the post of cooks. After this Government Order, the above referred Act has come into force. The provisions of Section 5 of the Act provides as follows:

¶70

“5. Reservation in appointments or posts in the

¶71

services under the State.(1) Notwithstanding anything

¶72

9/13

¶73

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

¶74

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶75

contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court

¶76

or other authority, having regard to the inadequate representation in the services under the State, of the Backward Classes of citizens and the persons belonging to

¶77

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, who constitute the majority of the total population of the State of Tamil Nadu, the reservation for appointments or posts in the services under the State, for the Backward Classes of citizens and for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, shall be sixty-nine per cent.”

¶78

The above provision contemplates 69% reservation. The Act

¶79

also prescribes the percentage for each of the categories as follows: Backward Classes 30%,

¶80

Most Backward Classes 20%,

¶81

Scheduled Castes 18% and

¶82

Scheduled Tribes 1%.

¶83

10/13

¶84

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

¶85

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶86

Nowhere does it provide 100% reservation to people belonging

¶87

to SC / ST.

¶88

The petitioners belonged to the Backward class / Most

¶89

Backward Class who are also entitled to reservation under the aforesaid

¶90

Act to an extent of 30% and 20% respectively. The respondents have totally ignored the provisions of the Act and has chosen to follow Government Order of the year 1986 which has been superseded by the Act. Further, even this Government Order only states that preference has to be given to SC / ST candidates and does not state that only

¶91

candidates belonging to SC / ST community should be considered.

¶92

Therefore, in the light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶93

22.07.2024

¶94

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan

¶95

11/13

¶96

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

¶97

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶98

¶99

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director, Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 3.The District Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Officer, Collector's Office, Salem, Salem District. 4.The District Collector, Salem, Salem District. 5.The District Employment Officer, Office of the District Employment Exchange, Salem District, Salem.

¶100

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

¶101

12/13

¶102

W.P.No.4651 of 2016

¶103

P.T. ASHA, J,

¶104

kan

¶105

W.P.No. 4651 of 2016

¶106

22.07.2024

¶107

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

¶108

13/13

M.Sadasivam, v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sadasivam, v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Anthonysamy, Vs The Chief Engineer/ Personnel

G.Maria Stephen, M.a.M.Phil., Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P.Gopalakrishnan Vs the Joint Registrar of Coop.

D.Gunasekaran Vs The Chairman cum Managing

G.Jagadeesan Vs The Member Secretary

S.Ramesh Vs The Chief Executive Officer