IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 16..12..2008 C O R A M The Honourable Mr. Justice S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA and The Honourable Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN Writ Petition No.28501 of 2008 A. Saravanan .. Petitioner versus 1. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai-2. 2. The Controller of Examinations and Secretary (In-charge), Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai-2. .. Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings No.Nil dated 3.11.2008, publishing the list of register numbers of candidates who have been selected provisionally for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, 2004-2008, insofar as the candidates selected under Backward Class (other than B.C. Christians and B.C. Muslims) (General) alone, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to conduct an interview for the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Elango For Respondents : Ms. C.N.G. Ezhilarasi, Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R ( Delivered by S.J. Mukhopadhaya , J. ) The petitioner, a member of the Backward Class Community, appeared in the written test pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.5.2008 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. He appeared in the written examination conducted by the Commission on 2nd and 3rd August, 2008, but having not been called to attend the viva voce test, he has preferred this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that though persons having obtained the same mark in the written test, i.e., a total of 191 marks, belonging to the same category (Backward Class Community), have been called to appear in the viva voce test, the petitioner has not been called for such appearance. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent- Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, wherein a specific plea has been taken that the petitioner has secured a total of 191 marks in the written examination. It is further stated that with reference to the marks obtained by the petitioner, and having regard to the Rule of Reservation of appointment and with respect to the Commission's Subsidiary Rules, the petitioner did not reach his turn for admission to the oral test. The details of marks secured by the candidates who were selected for admission to the viva voce test and the reasons for calling them to the viva voce test have been shown in the counter affidavit as follows :- Sl. No. Register Number Marks obtained in the Written Examination Date of Birth Remarks 1 02604090 188 01.07.1975 BC Ortho Candidate 2 01001253 191 12.07.1979 Older than the petitioner 3 01902128 191 18.07.1970 -do- 4 02602147 191 06.07.1971 -do- 5 02701007 191 25.05.1978 -do- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The stand of the Commission is that if more persons obtain the same mark in the written test, then among those persons, persons who are higher in age are called for the viva voce test and are given preference over those who are lesser in age. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commission's Subsidiary Rules talk of preparation of a merit list pursuant to the written test and viva voce test. According to him, if two persons have obtained the same marks both combining the written test and the viva voce test, then the person who is higher in age can be given preference over the person who is lesser in age. But, there is no provision to follow such a criteria in the matter of calling the candidates to appear in the viva voce test. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 5. It appears that there is no specific rule/guideline laid down as to who amongst equals should be called for the viva voce test if they obtain the same marks in the written test. We are of the view that in the absence of any specific rule or guideline, it is always open to the selecting authority, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission herein, to adopt a reasonable criteria which will not be arbitrary or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In cases where more candidates obtain the same marks in the written test, if the person of a higher age is given preference over another person of a lesser age in being called for to appear in the viva voce test on the basis of the candidate and post ratio, it cannot be held to be arbitrary. 6. We find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1 to 3 of 2008 are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ab https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai-2. 2. The Controller of Examinations and Secretary (In-charge), Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai-2. 1 cc To Mr.K.Elango, Advocate, SR.70202. Writ Petition No.28501 of 2008 KGK(CO) RVL 12.01.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/