SECRETARY, TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus A.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 15-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 221 
~:a 
SECRETARY, TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE 
A 
COMMISSION 
v. 
A.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. ETC. 
(Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-18of2014) 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878of2014) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India: Article 142 - Exercise of power - Writ 
petition alleging certain irregularities committed in examining the 
answer books submitted by candidates - Challenge to the 
appointments of selected candidates - Termination of services of . 
selected candidates - Supre111e Court upholding the termination 
order - Review Petition - Held: Records showed that sufficient ti111e 
was not given to the selected candidates to represent their case 
before High Court - The candidates so selected had been into service 
for several years, therefore, in the interest of administration and as 
well as in the interest of candidates, candidates are allowed to 
continue in service - Sen>ice law - Termination - Review. 
Partly allowing the review petitions and disposing of the 
interlocutory applications, the Court 
HELD: The notices were -issued by the High Court to the 
selected candidates, which were made returnable on 2•• March, 
2011. The matter was finally decided on 4rh March, 2011. This 
showed that sufficient time was not given to the selected 
candidates to represent their cases before the High Court. In 
the interest of administration as well as in the interest of the 
candidates, who have already passed the examination held by 
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and have been appointed 
by the State of Tamil Nadu in State services before several years, 
in exercise of powers und~r Article 142 of the Constitution of 
Inc:lia, the candidates who have been working in different services 
of Tamil Nadu State are allowed to continue in service, 
221 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
222 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
notwithstanding any order passed by the High Court and 
confirmed by this Court. This course is adopted mainly for the 
reason that the selected candidates did not get sufficient 
opportunity to represent their case before the High Court and 
also the mistakes, if any, committed by the selected candidates 
have very often been ignored. Moreover, in any case, the original 
petitioners are not likely to r~ceive any benefit because in any 
case they had failed at the examination held by the Public Service 
Commission and therefore, question of giving any appointment 
to them at this stage does not arise. (Paras 7,8, 911225-B-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 15-18 of 2014 
in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of2014 
WITH 
I.A. N0.3 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 & R.P.(C) N0.2624/2014 IN 
C.A. No.5879/2014 
' 
I.A. Nos.23-24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 
I.A. Nos.41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 
I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 & R.P.(c) No.2119/2014 
in CA. No.5884/2014 
R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 in C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014 
C.P.(C) D 31357/2014 IN I.A. Nos.15-16 in C.A. Nos. 5882-
5883/2014 
2014 
C.P.(C) D 31358/2014 IN I.A. No.24 in C.A. Nos. 5880-5881/ 
R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014 
R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 in C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014 
R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014 . 
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2011 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in.Writ Appeal Nos. 1063 and 1287 of2009. 
Mukul Rohtagi,AG, Subramonium Prasad, Sr.Adv. (AAG), Shyam 
Divan, K. Parasaran, A. K. Ganguli, P. S. Patwalia, Harin P. Raval, Sr. 
G 
Advs., M. Yogesh Kanna, Niraimati, V. Balachandran, R. Thirumalai, 
Ashok K. Mahajan, V. G. Pragasam, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Jayanth 
Muth Raj, Ms. Malvika J., Sureshan P:, Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Srishti 
Govil, B. Balaji, R. Rakesh Sharma, 
Ms. R. Shase, Anand Varma, 
Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, Ms. Divya Anand, Nipun Saxena, Prashant 
Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, S. Mutu Krishnan, R.V. Kameshwaran Ayyar, 
H 
SECRETARY, TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
v. A.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. 
G. Ananda Selvam, Mayil Samy K., Ram Sankar (For R.K. Adsure, 
Adv.) N. Subramaniyan, Reegan S. Bal, Jogy Scaria, Subrata Sas, 
Varinder Kumar Sharma, Subhasish Bhowmick. B. Ramana Mu11hy, 
C.K. Sasi, Naresh Kumar, Ms. Geetha Kovilan, Ms. T. Anamika. S. 
Srinivasan, Ad vs. for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered hy 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. These review petitions and applications 
have been filed by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and some of 
the employees of the State of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.