-vs-
T.Udayachandran The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission rep.by its Secretary Government Estate Chennai-600 002 ... Respondent in Cont.P.(MD) No.431 of 2011 & Petitioner in Rev.Apl.W.(MD) No.33 of 2015 PRAYER (in Cont.P.(MD) No.431 of 2011): This petition is filed under
Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order, dated 27.01.2011, passed by this Court in W.P.No.14446 of 2010.
PRAYER (in Rev.Apl.W.(MD) No.33 of 2015): This application is filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 C.P.C., to review the order, dated 27.01.2011, passed by this Court in W.P.No.14446 of 2010.
!For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai (in Cont.P.(MD) No.431 of 2011) for Mr.M.Ponniah & For Respondent (in Rev.Apl.W.(MD) No.33 of 2015) ^For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Senthil (in Cont.P.(MD) No.431 of 2011) & For Petitioner (in Rev.Apl.W.(MD) No.33 of 2015) :COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.,) Heard Mr.G.Prabu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
2. The contempt petition, in Cont.P.(MD) No.431 of 2011, has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order, dated 27.01.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.14446 of 2010. Whereas, the review application, in Rev.Apl.W.(MD) No.33 of 2015, has been filed to review the very same order.
3. The Division Bench, by order, dated 27.01.2011, allowed the writ petition, in W.P.(MD) No.14446 of 2010, filed by the writ petitioner and directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to issue appointment order to the writ petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It was further ordered that if ultimately, his community certificate is found to be not genuine, it is open to the appointing authority to take appropriate action as it deems fit.
4. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has filed the review application to review the said order and direction primarily on the ground that the writ petitioner has not been selected for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community and some other person, who has secured higher marks than the writ petitioner, has been selected for the said post.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner invited the attention of this Court, to the Memo, dated 12.08.2004, from which we find that the writ petitioner has been clearly informed that he has not been selected for the said post. He appears to have been guided by an information furnished by the Public Information Officer of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission stating that verification of his community claim is awaited from the District Vigilance Committee concerned and hence his result has been withheld pending receipt of the report from the District Vigilance Committee and its acceptance by the Commission. This appears to have been a basis for filing the writ petition. However, he did not disclose in the writ petition about the intimation given to him by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, on 12.08.2004, informing that he was not selected. If he had disclosed the same, then the Writ Court would not have allowed the writ petition as the writ petitioner has absolutely no justifiable right since he has been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the Writ Court could not be blamed for allowing the writ petition following the earlier order, because the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was negligent in not placing the relevant facts before the Court in spite of reasonable time having been granted.
6. Be that as it may, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the writ petitioner has been unsuccessful and therefore, this Court has to necessarily entertain the review application and interfere with the order passed in the writ petition.
7. Accordingly, the Review Application, in Rev.Apl.W.(MD) No.33 of 2015 is allowed and the order, dated 27.01.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.14446 of 2010, is set aside. Consequent to which, the writ petition, in W.P.(MD) No.14446 of 2010 is dismissed and the contempt petition, in Cont.P.(MD) No.431 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed..