Reservation policy adopted for civil judge post is erroneous: MHC

CHENNAI: As stated on Friday by the Madras High Court, the "reservation policy adopted for the civil judge post is erroneous." The provisional list was also scrapped.

Holding that the reservation policy adopted in the process of preparing a provisional select list for the post of civil judges by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) is an erroneous and clear violation, the Madras High Court (MHC) cancelled the published provisional select list.

A division bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar directed the TNPSC to prepare a revised provisional select list by accommodating the top-ranked candidates in the merit list under the general category and accommodating the candidates against the carried forward vacancies as per the quota notified for backlog vacancies.

A batch of petitions filed in the MHC sought to cancel the provisional select list for the post of civil judge published on February 16, as it is against the reservation ratio laid down by the Supreme Court (SC).

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the TNPSC released a notification to fill up 245 vacancies in civil judge posts. In that, 92 vacancies are carried forward.

The counsel submitted that the TNPSC selected the petitioners who secured top scores in the preliminary and main examinations under the Most Backward Caste (MBC) reservation category instead of merit ranking under the general category. It is a clear violation of Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, said the counsel. Further, the counsel contended to consider the carried-forward 92 vacancies and notify 153 current vacancies separately by adopting the reservation policy.

After the submission, the bench cited the SC's judgement in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Shobana and others(22021 case and wrote that toppers cannot be placed under the reservation category merely on the sphere of filling up backlog vacancies; it is a settled legal principle.

The meritorious candidates, who scored the highest marks, must be accommodated under the general category, and other candidates are to be accommodated in the carry-forward vacancies as per the quota earmarked, and remaining vacancies are to be filled up against the current vacancies, wrote the bench.

In this present case, it is unambiguous that the top scorers were accommodated under the reserved category, and candidates who scored lesser marks were accommodated under the general category.

"The methodology adopted by TNPSC resulted in an anomaly and denied many other eligible candidates the opportunity to accommodate them in the provisional select list based on the rule of reservation," wrote the bench.

Hence, the bench directed the TNPSC to revise the published provisional list by adopting Section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and the reservation ratio laid down by the SC.

Further, the bench was directed to publish the revised list within two weeks.