K.Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Page1 of 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL W.A.Nos.1751, 1841, 1858, 1964, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1986, 1987, 2301, 2392, 2599 of 2023, 563 of 2024, W.P.No.34996 of 2022 and W.P.(MD) No.8089 of 2023 AND C.M.P.Nos.15400, 16106, 16108, 16234, 16712, 16771, 16775, 16784, 16820, 16822, 16821, 16823, 16835, 19728, 19729, 20146, 20148, 21981 of 2023, 3910 of 2024, W.M.P.Nos.10851 of 2023, 34432 of 2022, W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13162 of 2024 and 7455 of 2023 W.A.No.1751 of 2023

¶1Dr.K.Kumar

¶2Dr.S.Gangasudan

¶3Dr.A.P.Ethelbert

¶4Dr.S.Mohanraj

¶5Dr.V.Venkatesan

¶6Dr.S.Venkadesh

¶7Dr.P.Michael

¶8Dr.T.Rajesh

¶9Dr.C.Shanmuganathan

10.Dr.S.Porgovan

11.Dr.P.Siranjeevi … Appellants -vs-

¶1The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶2The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009 Page2 of 11

¶3The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, TNPSC Road, V.O.C Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶4Dr.T.Deepak

¶5Dr.T.Muralidharan

¶6Dr.N.Aravindraj

¶7Dr.P.Nandhakumar

¶8Dr.P.Thangaraj

¶9Dr.R.Muthuvel

10.Dr.G.Nanthakumar

11.Dr.G.Sundarapandian

12.Dr.M.Thennavan

13.Dr.K.Boobalan

14.Dr.N.Gopalakrishnan

15.Dr.J.Anand

16.Dr.S.Madhan

17.Dr.N.Murugarajan

18.Dr.D.Suresh

19.Dr.K.Rajasekar

20.Dr.S.Vivek

21.Dr.E.Dhamodharachelvam

22.Dr.V.Anbarasan

23.Dr.R.Elavarasan

24.Dr.M.Dineshkumar

25.Dr.M.Boopathy

26.Dr.M.Nagarajan

27.Dr.P.Babu

28.Dr.T.Thirukumaran

29.Dr.S.Balaji

30.Dr.S.Rajasekar

31.Dr.K.Narayanasamy

32.Dr.R.Perumal

33.Dr.S.Babu

34.Dr.L.Ravikumar

35.Dr.G.Logeshwaran

36.Dr.S.Arun Prabhu

37.Dr.M.Kathirvel

38.Dr.L.Muralitharan

39.Dr.P.Periyasamy Page3 of 11

40.Dr.P.Kamalraj

41.Dr.K.Kamalahasan

42.Dr.K.Govindaraj

43.Dr.R.Raja

44.T.Kanagaraj

45.Dr.S.Senthamilselvan

46.Dr.P.Vinothkumar

47.Dr.M.Senthilkumar

48.Dr.P.Manigandan

49.Dr.E.Premkumar

50.Dr.A.Venkateshkumar

51.J.Sambandhan

52.Dr.R.Gnanavel

53.Dr.P.Mani

54.Dr.P.Mahendran … Respondents Prayer: To set aside the Common Order dated 19.04.2023 in Writ Petition No.33783 of 2022. Case No. For Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) For Respondent/s W.A.No.1751of 2023 Mr.P.Godson Swaminath For M/s.Issac Chambers Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 W.A.No.1841of 2023 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel For Ms.C.Uma Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 W.A.No.1858 of 2023 Mrs.Dhakshyani Reddy, Senior Counsel For Ms.S.Suneetha Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R2 W.A.No.1964 of 2023 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel For Ms.C.Uma Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah for R2 W.A.No.1979 of 2023 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel For Ms.C.Uma Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 Page4 of 11 W.A.No.1980 of 2023 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel For Ms.C.Uma Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 W.A.No.1985 of 2023 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel For Ms.C.Uma Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah W.A.No.1986 of 2023 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel For Ms.C.Uma Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 & R4 to R44 – Not necessary parties W.A.No.1987 of 2023 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel For Ms.C.Uma Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah for R2 W.A.No.2301 of 2023 M/s.Parvatha Varthini Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 W.A.No.2392 of 2023 Mr.N.Stalin Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 W.A.No.2599 of 2023 Mrs.Thangavadhana Balakrishnan Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 W.A.No.563 of 2024 Mr.P.Godson Swaminath For M/s.Issac Chambers Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 W.P.No.34996 of 2022 Mr.N.Umapathi Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R3 W.P.(MD) No.8089 of 2023 Mr.P.Godson Swaminath For M/s.Issac Chambers Dr.R.Gouri, Govt. Counsel for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R4 ***** Page5 of 11 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam,J.) The present batch of Writ Appeals have been instituted under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the common order dated 19.04.2023 passed in a batch of Writ Petitions. Along with the batch of Writ Appeals, two other Writ Petitions in W.P.No.34996 of 2022 and W.P.(MD) No.8089 of 2023 have been filed for direction to re-arrange the provisional selection list.

¶2Facts in brief required for disposal of cases are that Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) issued Recruitment Notification Nos.32 of 2019 dated 18.11.2019, 4 of 2021 dated

05.02.2021, 18 of 2019 dated 29.05.2019, inviting applications from eligible candidates through online mode for Direct Recruitment to the posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Service to fill up 1141 vacancies upto 17.12.2019, Agricultural Officer (Extension) included in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service to fill up 365 vacancies upto 04.03.2021, various other posts upto

28.06.2019. Page6 of 11

¶3It is not in dispute between parties that the process of selection was concluded in all respects and selected candidates, who were appointed on 09.02.2022, have been working in the Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department and other Departments for about five years. Soon after completion of selection and appointment of selected candidates, a batch of Writ Petitions had been instituted, more particularly with reference to Sections 26 and 27 of The Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 in the matter of providing reservation for women candidates. A Division Bench of this Court elaborately considered issues, relating to selection and delivered a judgment on

07.09.2022, disposing of writ petitions.

¶4Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.P.Godson Swaminath, learned counsel for M/s.Issac Chambers and other learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would mainly rely on Paragraph Nos.43 and 44 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "43. The exercise aforesaid would be undertaken in reference to all the selections under challenge and if any of the petitioners find place in the merit based on the said arrangement, then they would be given appointment in service to the post concerned. However, it is with a clarification that Page7 of 11 the petitioners would be entitled to the appointment only if they fall in the merit after arranging the lists in the manner given above and not otherwise.

¶44In those cases where appointments are yet to be made, the arrangement given by us would be applied and if the respondents find it to be offending Section 26 of the Act of 2016, then the same is declared ultra vires the Constitution, because the Constitution and the judgments of the Apex Court do not provide setting apart of the posts for female candidates to be arranged vertically."

¶5The argument of learned Senior Counsel and other counsel mainly rests on the ground that spirit of the judgment has not been implemented and therefore, appellants herein filed writ petitions in the year 2022 and 2023, more specifically after delivery of judgment by Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions on 07.09.2022.

¶6Admittedly, writ petitions have been instituted by present appellants after a lapse of about three years from the date of notification and 2 years from the date of appointment of selected candidates, after common order passed in a batch of writ petitions by Division Bench on

07.09.2022. Learned Single Judge considered the issues and given a finding that writ petitions were filed with delay and latches, tantamounting to acquiescence on their part. Appellants herein filed writ Page8 of 11 of mandamus, seeking direction to revise the selection list, which was acted upon by issuing appointment orders. Such a relief sought for by appellants in the writ petitions after issuance of appointment orders based on the selection list per se is not maintainable. Learned Single Judge also considered the point of delay and laches and found that the relief as such sought for based on the judgment delivered in the batch of writ petitions is untenable.

¶7This Court is of the considered view that if there is any illegality in the Recruitment Notification, an aggrieved person has to challenge the same before completion of process of selection. If the process of selection is tainted and candidates came to know it after publication of selected list, then such aggrieved persons have to approach Court immediately without causing any undue delay.

¶8In the present case, appellants have allowed the process of selection to go on and after completion of selection process, appointment of selected candidates and after delivery of judgment by Division Bench of this Court, appellants filed writ of mandamus, seeking a direction to revisit the selection list. In the event of entertaining such writ petitions, it will result in opening pandora box and many other similarly placed unsuccessful candidates, who participated in the Page9 of 11 process of selection may also file further writ petitions based on the order passed subsequently after issuance of appointment orders. This exactly is the reason why Courts have time and again reiterated that fence sitters are not entitled to maintain writ petitions after completion of process of selection and in the present case, after issuance of appointment orders in the year 2021/2022. This Court is not inclined to go into other merits, since writ petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches and also on the ground that prayer as such sought for to re-do selection list is not maintainable after issuance of appointment orders. Other submission made on behalf of appellants that they are meritorious and entitled for appointment, deserves no further consideration. Pertinently, subsequent Recruitment Notification was also issued for the same posts.

¶9For all these foregoing reasons, the present Writ Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, Writ Petitions also stand dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 24-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AR Note: Registry is directed to type all cause title Page10 of 11 To:

¶1The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Personnel and Administrative Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶2The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009

¶3The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission TNPSC Road, V.O.C Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003. Page11 of 11 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL,J. AR W.A.Nos.1751, 1841, 1858, 1964, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1986, 1987, 2301, 2392, 2599 of 2023, 563 of 2024, W.P.No.34996 of 2022 and W.P.(MD) No.8089 of 2023 24-06-2026