Page 1

1

            REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.15-18 OF 2014  IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5877-5878 OF 2014

SECRETARY, TAMILNADU  PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                    …APPLICANT

VERSUS

A.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. ETC.              ...RESPONDENTS

WITH

I.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A. No.5879/2014

I.A.Nos.23-24 IN C.A.Nos.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 C.A. No.5884/2014

R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014

CONMT. PET. (C) NO……/2014 (DIARY NO.31357/2014)  IN I.A. NOS.15-16/2014 IN C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014

CONMT. PET. (C) NO……/2014 (DIARY NO.31358/2014)  IN I.A. NO.24/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014

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

J U D G M E N T

Page 2

2

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 Tamil Nadu, who had been appointed

in Tamil Nadu State Services,  but by virtue of  the judgment

dated  30th June,  2014  delivered  by  this  Court  in

C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014,  confirming  the  judgment  delivered

by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Madras  in  Writ  Appeal

Nos.1063  and  1287  of  2009  dated  4th March,  2011,  their

services are to be terminated.  

2. The case on hand has a chequered history, which has

been narrated in the judgment dated 30th June, 2014 delivered

by this Court in C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, which is sought to

be reviewed and therefore, we do not narrate  the facts once

again.   

3. Suffice it is to state that an examination was held by

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for selecting candidates

for certain Tamil Nadu State services and it was alleged that

some  irregularities  had  been  committed  in  examining  the

answer  books  submitted  by  the  candidates.   In  the

circumstances, a petition was filed in the High Court of Madras

challenging  appointments  of  the  candidates  who  had  been

finally  selected.   The  said  petition had  been  rejected by  the

Page 3

3

learned Single Judge and the appeal filed against the order of

rejection had been allowed,  whereby  services  of  some of  the

selected candidates had to be terminated.  The said judgment of

the Division Bench was confirmed by this Court by virtue of the

judgment, which is sought to be reviewed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for  Tamil Nadu Public

Service  Commission,  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  the  selected

candidates  submitted  that  the  judgment  is  required  to  be

reviewed for the reason that the selected candidates did not get

due opportunity before the High Court to represent their case

and the State of Tamil Nadu was not a party to the original

litigation,  though  it  ought  to  have  been  joined  because  the

candidates  who  were  admitted  to  the  State  services,  whose

services were sought to be terminated, had been appointed by

the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu.   It  is  also  case  of  the  applicants

praying for review of the judgment that certain methods, which

had been adopted by the High Court while coming to the final

conclusion arrived at, by virtue of the judgment delivered by the

Division Bench,  were not  proper  and therefore,  the  selection

made  by  Tamil  Nadu Public  Service  Commission  should  not

have been set aside, especially when all the candidates who had

been selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and

who had been appointed to different State services by the State

of Tamil Nadu were in service for more than 7-8 years with due

Page 4

4

efficiency  and  their  effectiveness  as  officers  was  never

questioned even  by  their  superiors  or  by  the  State  of  Tamil

Nadu.   It  was  also  submitted  that  grave  injustice  would  be

caused  to  those  officers  working  for  several  years  as  their

services will be terminated and they will not get any chance to

get any employment elsewhere as they have already crossed the

age limit for applying for any other government post by virtue of

afflux of time and that too for no fault on their part.  

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the original petitioners before the High Court submitted that

the  judgment  sought  to  be  reviewed is  just  and proper  and

therefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  disturb  the  said  judgment,

especially in view of the fact that the review applications had

been filed after a long time and it would not be in the interest of

society to continue such officers, who had been improperly or

irregularly  selected.   According  to  the  learned  counsel,  a

message must go to the society that no irregularity committed

while examining the answer books can be tolerated

6. Several submissions were made by the learned counsel

appearing for the original petitioners before the High Court with

regard to  use  of  colour  pencils,  pens etc.  by  the  candidates

while  answering  the  question  papers.   Different  views  were

expressed  by  different  counsel  even  at  the  stage  when  the

matter  was  pending  before  the  High  Court,  when  the  High

Page 5

5

Court  had  appointed  court  officers  to  examine  the  answer

books.  Different views were expressed by different persons and

even different views were expressed when the answer books had

been examined at the instance of  this Court  by independent

examiners of Union Public Service Commission.  Be that as it

may, at this stage, when the candidates who were appointed

and who have been working as State Officers for more than 10

years or so and when the examiners, who have rechecked the

answer books, have expressed little different views and in view

of  the  fact  that  the  selected  candidates  did  not  get  any

opportunity to represent their cases before the High Court as

very little  time was given to them to appear before the High

Court, it would be just and proper to review the judgment.   

7. It is not in dispute that notices had been issued by the

High  Court  to  the  selected  candidates,  which  were  made

returnable on 2nd March, 2011 and the matter had been finally

decided on 4th March, 2011.  It is thus clear that sufficient time

was  not  given  to  the  selected  candidates  to  represent  their

cases before the High Court and the said fact has been now

brought to the notice of this Court.  Thus, the submission made

on behalf of the selected candidates are found to be correct and

in fact they did not get adequate opportunity to represent their

case effectively before the learned Single Judge.

8. Having  overall  view of  the  matter,  in  the  interest  of

Page 6

6

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 under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct

that the candidates who have been working in different services

of  Tamil  Nadu  State   shall  be  continued  in  service,

notwithstanding  any  order  passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of

Madras High Court and confirmed by this Court.

9. We  have  adopted  this  course  mainly  for  the  reason

that the selected candidates did not get sufficient opportunity

to  represent  their  case  before  the  High  Court,  as  stated

hereinabove and upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon

perusal  of  the  record  and  report  received  from  Tamil  Nadu

Public  Service  Commission  as  well  as  Union  Public  Service

Commission, we also find that the mistakes, if any, committed

by the candidates who have now been selected, were very often

ignored and therefore, it would not be just and proper to take

such  a  harsh  view  in  the  matter  so  as  to  render  several

reasonably  good  officers  working  for  several  years  jobless.

Moreover, in any case, the original petitioners who had filed the

petition, are not likely to have any benefit because in any case

they had failed at the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public

Service  Commission  and  therefore,  there  is  no  question  of

Page 7

7

giving any appointment to them at this stage.

10. For the aforestated reasons the review applications are

allowed only to the above extent by exercising our power under

Article  142  of  the  Constitution  of  India.    All  interlocutory

applications and the contempt  petitions  are also  disposed of

accordingly.

.…………………….J.                                                         (ANIL R. DAVE)

……………………..J.                                                                (DIPAK MISRA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 15, 2016.