AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—Petitioner appeared for the Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for requirement
to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), pursuant to a notification issued on 2nd July, 1998. The Petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste. Out
of 73 vacancies for which recruitment was proposed under the said notification, 19 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes. Of these 19 posts,
three were carried forward vacancies and three vacancies were reserved for women. The cut off mark for Scheduled Caste (general) was 205.
The Petitioner secured only 201 marks and therefore, he was not selected for any of the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates (Men).
Out of the three posts reserved for women, two women candidates were selected, although they had secured only 193 and 188 marks. The third
vacancy meant for women Scheduled Caste candidates came to be filled up by recruiting another Scheduled Caste male candidate., who had
secured higher marks than what had been secured by the Petitioner before us.
All the 19 vacancies including three vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste women candidates, were therefore, properly filled up at the
selection. The Petitioner cannot claim any right in relation to any of those posts, as the candidates selected, had either secured higher marks than
the Petitioner or belonged to the special category viz. women Scheduled Caste candidates.
It was, however, contended for the Petitioner that the Respondents should have dereserved four vacancies which remained unfilled from among
the posts reserved for Most Backward Class/Denotified Tribes and the carried forward vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe which also had
remained unfilled for want of suitable candidates. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that if those posts had been dereserved, the Petitioner
would have had a chance of being selected, even though he secured only 201 marks. We may at once point out that the Petitioner, even in the
event of the dereservation of those posts has no chance of being selected, as in the event of those posts being made available to those in the order
of merit, they would have been filled by other candidates, who had secured more marks than the Petitioner.
The cut off mark for the selection of candidates (general turn) was 253, the cut off mark for the selection of women candidates (general turn)
was 230, the cut off mark for Backward Class (General) candidates was 230, and for the general Backward Class (Women) the cut off mark was
No backward Class woman candidate was found suitable. Therefore, a male Backward Class candidate was selected against the vacancy
reserved for the women Backward Class candidates. The marks secured by that person was 229.
The cut off marks for the Most Backward Class/Denotified Tribes (general) was 221. The four posts reserved for women candidates from the
Most Backward Class/Denotified Tribes could not be filled up, as suitable women candidates from among the Most Backward Class/Denotified
Tribes were not available.
As regards, the right of the Government to keep the vacancies unfilled, reliance has been placed by the State on Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Service Rules, which requires that vacancies, which are unfilled, but which are reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Tribes candidate, be kept unfilled and if even after a special attempt being made to
recruit persons from such category in the same recruitment year, they remain unfilled, then such vacancies would be carried forward to the next
recruitment by treating them as ''backlog'' vacancies. The third proviso in the Explanation to Rule 22(d) of the Rules states that "" In the subsequent
year, when direct recruitment is made for the vacancies of that year (called the current vacancies); the ''backlog'' vacancies shall also be announced
for direct recruitment, keeping the vacancies of the particular recruitment year, viz., the current year vacancies and the ''backlog'' vacancies as two
distinct groups as illustrated in schedule to this part.
Learned additional Government Pleader has placed before us a communication from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in which it is
stated that five vacancies of the recruitment year 1997-98 four posts for the women candidates belonging to Most Backward Classes and
Denotified Candidates and one post for the Scheduled Tribe, are being added to the number of vacancies for which recruitment is being made for
the year 1998-99.
8-A. The Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.
Before parting with this case, we must however, draw the attention of the Government to the power reserved to it under Rule 22(d) of the
Rules. Proviso 4 to the said Rules reads as under:
Provided also that in exceptional cases for posts in Groups 1A and B for which suitable candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled
Tribes, Most Backward Classes or Denotified Communities are not available against the respective reserved vacancies and the non-filling up of
posts causes hardship for running the administration, exemption from the ban shall be granted by the government. The procedure for carrying
forward of such vacancies and for exemption from this ban under this Rule shall be as specified in Schedule v. to these Rules.
The power that has been reserved to the Government under this proviso has been reserved to it, in order to enable the Government to ensure
that no hardship is caused to the Institution for which the recruitment is made. The power so given is meant to be exercised, when the non-filling of
the posts cause hardship. The express command to the Government is that
...exemption from the ban shall be granted by the Government....
(Emphasis supplied).
It is the obligation of the State to ensure that posts in the judiciary are filled up and not kept vacant, as the staggering backlog of cases cannot
be allowed to increase further, by allowing posts in the State Judicial service to remain vacant. The hardship caused to the public at large, to the
litigants, and to the judicial wing of the State is evident.
The Government is, therefore, duty bound to take note of the hardship caused by the non-filling up of the vacancies in the Judiciary, and grant
exemption from the ban.
The Judiciary is the forum of last resort for the citizens, whose grievances remain unredressed in other forums. If Courts are rendered non-
functional. by keeping the posts of Presiding Officers vacant, the public at large, and the litigants would not only feel frustrated but would also be
tempted to resort to extra legal acts thereby causing great detriment to the society at large. It is the constitutional mandate to the state, and it is the
constitutional obligation of the State to provide the infrastructure and manpower required, for ensuring speedy dispensation of justice and that
cannot be done, unless the requisite number of courts with proper infrastructure are constituted, and all Courts manned by persons of ability and
integrity possessing the qualifications prescribed for the posts.
In cases, where recruitment cannot be done from among the persons or groups for whose benefit the reservation is meant, the Government
must immediately take note of the hardship that is likely to be caused by keeping the posts vacant, and proceed to grant exemption from the ban so
that all the vacancies for filling of which recruitment has been initiated, are filled up.
As the Petitioner has been found to be not entitled to any relief in this writ petition, this writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition
are dismissed.