The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered status quo on the continuance in service of the 83 Group I officers in Tamil Nadu whose appointments were quashed on June 30.
A Bench of Justices Anil Dave and Dipak Misra had dismissed the appeal by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, holding that these candidates did not deserve to be officers because the irregularities they had committed in the selection test. Subsequently, the TNPSC and the officers sought a modification of the June 30 verdict. Even as this plea was pending, the officers continued in service.
On Wednesday, when the matter was taken up by the same Bench, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State, said it would be a travesty of justice if the officers were asked to go after they had worked for more than 10 years.
Producing a copy of the answer sheets, he demonstrated that even candidates who had marked in black pencils were disqualified based on the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Except one candidate who invoked religion, the rest did not commit any irregularity as alleged by the Advocate Commissioner.
Senior counsel Rakesh Diwedi, appearing for the TNPSC, said the verdict had not dealt with certain aspects.
Justice Dave said that if the candidate could not follow the simple instructions, they did not deserve to be in service. “We were more concerned about dishonest intention. If you [the AG] say it is not dishonest intention, but maybe carelessness, we are willing to consider.”
Justice Dipak Misra told the AG that had these facts been highlighted by the TNPSC, the court could have considered them.
Entertaining the applications from the TNPSC and the officers, the Bench issued notice and scheduled further hearing for September 23. “In the meantime, status quo be maintained,” it said.
The TNPSC said in its application that of a total of 747 candidates, 746 violated the instructions. “The instructions do not prohibit the use of pencil and bullet points for answering questions, and the examiner is not prevented from looking at the substance of the answer and correlating it with the appropriate question.”
On behalf of the officers, it was submitted that in view of the June 30 judgment, the applicants who had completed 10 years of service would lose their jobs and could not even take part in any fresh selection in view of their age.
