High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 15.07.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012andM.P.Nos.1, 1, 2 and 2 of 2012W.P.No.23208 of 2012D.Jayakumar... Petitioner(s) Vs.The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,1, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.... Respondent(s)Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned entire selection list dated 25.06.2012 of the candidates selected provisionally for the post of 'Drug Inspector' in Tamil Nadu Medical Service 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, 'Junior Analyst' in drugs testing laboratory in Tamil Nadu Medical Subordinate Service including 2010-2011 including its reserve list and one candidate selected and placed in reserve list of the post of Phenyle Assistant in Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service with connected records and to quash the same.W.P.No.23231 of 2012R.S.Kamalakannan... Petitioner(s)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012 Vs.The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,1, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.... Respondent(s)Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned entire selection list dated 25.06.2012 of the candidates selected provisionally for the post of 'Drug Inspector' in Tamil Nadu Medical Service 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, 'Junior Analyst' in drugs testing laboratory in Tamil Nadu Medical Subordinate Service including 2010-2011 including its reserve list and one candidate selected and placed in reserve list of the post of Phenyle Assistant in Tamil Nadu Jail Subordinate Service 2006-2007 with connected records and to quash the same.In Both PetitionsFor Petitioner(s): M/s.R.EzhilarasanFor Respondent(s): Mrs.G.Hema, Standing Counsel for TNPSCC O M M O N O R D E RThese two writ petitions have been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the entire selection list dated 25.06.2012 of candidates provisionally selected for appointment to the post of 'Drug Inspector' in the Tamil Nadu Medical Subordinate Service for the Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012years 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, and for the post of 'Junior Analyst' in Drugs Testing Laboratory in the Tamil Nadu Medical Subordinate Service for the year 2010-2011, including the reserved list, and to quash the same.2. Both the petitioners participated in the recruitment process initiated by the respondents pursuant to the Advertisement No.298 dated 21.03.2012. The petitioner in W.P.No.23208 of 2012 submitted his application for two posts notified under the above said advertisement, namely, 'Drug Inspector' and 'Junior Analyst', and whereas, the petitioner in W.P.No.23231 of 2012 applied for all the three posts, namely, 'Drug Inspector', 'Junior Analyst' and the post of 'Phenyle Assistant'. The petitioners, after having participated in the 'written examination', could not qualify for the 'oral test', and at that stage, both these writ petitions have been filed challenging the provisional selection list of candidates for 90 posts of 'Drug Inspector' and 23 posts of “Junior Analyst', mainly on the ground that the candidates who did not appear for the 'oral test' for the post of 'Junior Analyst' have been provisionally selected for the said post. 3. Mr.R.Ezhilarasan, learned counsel for the petitioners, having drawn Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012the attention of this court to the provisional selection list published by the respondent TNPSC, contended that all the 24 hall ticket numbers which were mentioned at the bottom of the provisional selection list were all provisionally selected for the post of 'Junior Analyst', and out of that, eight candidates are the persons, who have not appeared for the 'oral test' for the post of 'Junior Analyst', yet they were selected to the post of 'Junior Analyst'.4. Ms. Hema, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/ TNPSC, on the other hand, submitted that the eight candidates, who were provisionally selected to the post of 'Junior Analyst' were mentioned in the middle of the provisional list published and whereas the 24 hall ticket numbers mentioned at the bottom of the provisional selection list includes withheld candidates, for want of verification or production of certain documents and they include hall ticket numbers of the candidates who were selected to the post of 'Drug Inspector' as well as 'Junior Analyst'. She also further submitted that out of these 24 withheld members, 8 numbers belong to the candidates selected for recruitment for the post of 'Drug Inspector' and 16 numbers are in respect of 'Junior Assistants'. It is also brought to the notice of this court by the learned Standing Counsel that all the 8 candidates, whose Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012hall ticket numbers were shown in the withheld list were appointed as 'Drug Inspectors', but not to the post of 'Junior Analyst'. Thus, she contended that the confusion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived, as no person who did not attended the 'oral test' for the post of 'Junior Analyst' was selected and appointed to the post of 'Junior Analyst'.5. This court, after verifying the provisional list of candidates appointed to the post of 'Drug Inspector' and 'Junior Analyst', is thoroughly convinced that the explanation offered by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is proper and the writ petition has been filed in total misconception of the facts of the case and this court is in full agreement of the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.6. Be that as it may, the petitioners herein, having sought to quash the select list for the post of 'Drug Inspector', 'Junior Analyst' as well as 'Phenyle Assistant', have not chosen to implead any of the candidates selected pursuant to the Advertisement in question. Therefore, in the absence of impleading the proper and necessary parties who are likely to be affected in the event of granting relief sought for by the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012petitioners. 7. In the light of the above, these writ petitions are liable to the dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.15.07.2025skrIndex : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes / NoPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.skrToThe Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,1, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 2012Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.23208 & 23231 of 201215.07.2025Page 8 of 8