T.VANITHA . v. A.B.NATARAJAN .

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.15-18 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5877-5878 OF 2014 SECRETARY, TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION …APPLICANT VERSUS A.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTS WITH I.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A. No.5879/2014 I.A.Nos.23-24 IN C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 I.A.Nos.41-42 IN C.A.NO.5882-5883/2014 I.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5884/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2119/2014 IN C.A. No.5884/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014 CONMT. PET. (C) NO……/2014 (DIARY NO.31357/2014) IN I.A. NOS.15-16/2014 IN C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 CONMT. PET. (C) NO……/2014 (DIARY NO.31358/2014) IN I.A. NO.24/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 IN C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014 J U D G M E N T

2 ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. These review petitions and applications have been filed by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and some of the employees of the State of Tamil Nadu, who had been appointed in Tamil Nadu State Services, but by virtue of the judgment dated 30 th June, 2014 delivered by this Court in C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, confirming the judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos.1063 and 1287 of 2009 dated 4 th March, 2011, their services are to be terminated. 2. The case on hand has a chequered history, which has been narrated in the judgment dated 30 th June, 2014 delivered by this Court in C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, which is sought to be reviewed and therefore, we do not narrate the facts once again. 3. Suffice it is to state that an examination was held by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for selecting candidates for certain Tamil Nadu State services and it was alleged that some irregularities had been committed in examining the answer books submitted by the candidates. In the circumstances, a petition was filed in the High Court of Madras challenging appointments of the candidates who had been finally selected. The said petition had been rejected by the

3 learned Single Judge and the appeal filed against the order of rejection had been allowed, whereby services of some of the selected candidates had to be terminated. The said judgment of the Division Bench was confirmed by this Court by virtue of the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed by this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, State of Tamil Nadu and the selected candidates submitted that the judgment is required to be reviewed for the reason that the selected candidates did not get due opportunity before the High Court to represent their case and the State of Tamil Nadu was not a party to the original litigation, though it ought to have been joined because the candidates who were admitted to the State services, whose services were sought to be terminated, had been appointed by the State of Tamil Nadu. It is also case of the applicants praying for review of the judgment that certain methods, which had been adopted by the High Court while coming to the final conclusion arrived at, by virtue of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench, were not proper and therefore, the selection made by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission should not have been set aside, especially when all the candidates who had been selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and who had been appointed to different State services by the State of Tamil Nadu were in service for more than 7-8 years with due

4 efficiency and their effectiveness as officers was never questioned even by their superiors or by the State of Tamil Nadu. It was also submitted that grave injustice would be caused to those officers working for several years as their services will be terminated and they will not get any chance to get any employment elsewhere as they have already crossed the age limit for applying for any other government post by virtue of afflux of time and that too for no fault on their part. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the original petitioners before the High Court submitted that the judgment sought to be reviewed is just and proper and therefore, there is no reason to disturb the said judgment, especially in view of the fact that the review applications had been filed after a long time and it would not be in the interest of society to continue such officers, who had been improperly or irregularly selected. According to the learned counsel, a message must go to the society that no irregularity committed while examining the answer books can be tolerated 6. Several submissions were made by the learned counsel appearing for the original petitioners before the High Court with regard to use of colour pencils, pens etc. by the candidates while answering the question papers. Different views were expressed by different counsel even at the stage when the matter was pending before the High Court, when the High

5 Court had appointed court officers to examine the answer books. Different views were expressed by different persons and even different views were expressed when the answer books had been examined at the instance of this Court by independent examiners of Union Public Service Commission. Be that as it may, at this stage, when the candidates who were appointed and who have been working as State Officers for more than 10 years or so and when the examiners, who have rechecked the answer books, have expressed little different views and in view of the fact that the selected candidates did not get any opportunity to represent their cases before the High Court as very little time was given to them to appear before the High Court, it would be just and proper to review the judgment. 7. It is not in dispute that notices had been issued by the High Court to the selected candidates, which were made returnable on 2 nd March, 2011 and the matter had been finally decided on 4 th March, 2011. It is thus clear that sufficient time was not given to the selected candidates to represent their cases before the High Court and the said fact has been now brought to the notice of this Court. Thus, the submission made on behalf of the selected candidates are found to be correct and in fact they did not get adequate opportunity to represent their case effectively before the learned Single Judge. 8. Having overall view of the matter, in the interest of

6 administration as well as in the interest of the candidates, who have already passed the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and have been appointed by the State of Tamil Nadu in State services before several years, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct that the candidates who have been working in different services of Tamil Nadu State shall be continued in service, notwithstanding any order passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court and confirmed by this Court. 9. We have adopted this course mainly for the reason that the selected candidates did not get sufficient opportunity to represent their case before the High Court, as stated hereinabove and upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon perusal of the record and report received from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as well as Union Public Service Commission, we also find that the mistakes, if any, committed by the candidates who have now been selected, were very often ignored and therefore, it would not be just and proper to take such a harsh view in the matter so as to render several reasonably good officers working for several years jobless. Moreover, in any case, the original petitioners who had filed the petition, are not likely to have any benefit because in any case they had failed at the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and therefore, there is no question of

7 giving any appointment to them at this stage. 10. For the aforestated reasons the review applications are allowed only to the above extent by exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. All interlocutory applications and the contempt petitions are also disposed of accordingly. .…………………….J. (ANIL R. DAVE) …………………… ..J. (DIPAK MISRA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 15, 2016.

8 REVISED ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.2 SECTION XII (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos.15-18/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) WITH I.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A. No.5879/2014 I.A. Nos.23-24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 I.A. Nos.41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 & R.P.(c) No.2119/2014 in CA. No.5884/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 in C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014 C.P.(C) D 31357/2014 IN I.A. Nos.15-16 in C.A. Nos. 5882-5883/2014 C.P.(C) D 31358/2014 IN I.A. No.24 in C.A. Nos. 5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 in C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014 Date : 15/09/2016 These matters were called on for pronouncement of judgment. For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AOR Ms. Nithya,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,AOR Mr. V. Balachandran,AOR Mr. V. G. Pragasam,AOR Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv.

9 Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Mrs. Malavika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,AOR Mr. S. Srinivasan,AOR In RP.201-202/15 Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AOR Mr. B. Balaji,AOR Mr. Muthu Vel Palani,Adv. Mr. Aravind Athithan,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,AOR Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran,AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi,AOR Mr. G. Ananda Selvam,Adv. Mr. K. Mayil Samy,Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar,Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh,Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,AOR Ms. T. Anamika,AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,AOR Ms. Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,AOR Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,AOR Mr. Anant Varma,Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,AOR Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,AOR Mr. S. Muthu Krishnan,Adv. Mr. Reegan S. Bell,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.

10 “...8. Having overall view of the matter, in the interest of administration as well as in the interest of the candidates, who have already passed the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and have been appointed by the State of Tamil Nadu in State services before several years, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct that the candidates who have been working in different services of Tamil Nadu State shall be continued in service, notwithstanding any order passed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court and confirmed by this Court. 9. We have adopted this course mainly for the reason that the selected candidates did not get sufficient opportunity to represent their case before the High Court, as stated hereinabove and upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon perusal of the record and report received from Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as well as Union Public Service Commission, we also find that the mistakes, if any, committed by the candidates who have now been selected, were very often ignored and therefore, it would not be just and proper to take such a harsh view in the matter so as to render several reasonably good officers working for several years jobless. Moreover, in any case, the original petitioners who had filed the petition, are not likely to have any benefit because in any case they had failed at the examination held by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and therefore, there is no question of giving any appointment to them at this stage. 10. For the aforestated reasons the review applications are allowed only to the above extent by exercising our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. All interlocutory applications and the contempt petitions are also disposed of accordingly.” (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SNEH BALA MEHRA) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed 'Reportable' Judgment is placed on the file)

¼r1 REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONINTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS.15-18 OF 2014 INCIVIL APPEAL NOS.5877-5878 OF 2014SECRETARY, TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION â¬ ¦APPLICANTVERSUSA.B. NATARAJAN & ORS. ETC. ...RESPONDENTSWITHI.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A.No.5879/2014I.A.Nos.23-24 IN C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014I.A.Nos.41-42 IN C.A.NO.5882-5883/2014I.A.No.3 IN C.A.No.5884/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2119/2014 IN C.A.No.5884/2014R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014CONMT. PET. (C) NOâ¬ ¦â¬ ¦/2014 (DIARY NO.31357/2014) IN I.A. NOS.15-16/2014 IN C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014CONMT. PET. (C) NOâ¬ ¦â¬ ¦/2014 (DIARY NO.31358/2014) IN I.A. NO.24/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 IN C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 IN C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 IN C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014J U D G M E N T2ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. These review petitions and applications have been filedby Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and some of theemployees of the State of Tamil Nadu, who had been appointedin Tamil Nadu State Services, but by virtue of the judgmentdated 30 th June, 2014 delivered by this Court inC.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, confirming the judgment deliveredby the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ AppealNos.1063 and 1287 of 2009 dated 4 th March, 2011, theirservices are to be terminated. 2. The case on hand has a chequered history, which hasbeen narrated in the judgment dated 30 th June, 2014 deliveredby this Court in C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014, which is sought tobe reviewed and therefore, we do not narrate the facts onceagain. 3. Suffice it is to state that an examination was held byTamil Nadu Public Service Commission for selecting candidatesfor certain Tamil Nadu State services and it was alleged thatsome irregularities had been committed in examining theanswer books submitted by the candidates. In thecircumstances, a petition was filed in the High Court of Madraschallenging appointments of the candidates who had beenfinally selected. The said petition had been rejected by the3learned Single Judge and the appeal filed against the order ofrejection had been allowed, whereby services of some of theselected candidates had to be terminated. The said judgment ofthe Division Bench was confirmed by this Court by virtue of thejudgment, which is sought to be reviewed by this Court.4. The learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission, State of Tamil Nadu and the selectedcandidates submitted that the judgment is required to bereviewed for the reason that the selected candidates did not getdue opportunity before the High Court to represent their caseand the State of Tamil Nadu was not a party to the originallitigation, though it ought to have been joined because the

candidates who were admitted to the State services, whoseservices were sought to be terminated, had been appointed bythe State of Tamil Nadu. It is also case of the applicantspraying for review of the judgment that certain methods, whichhad been adopted by the High Court while coming to the finalconclusion arrived at, by virtue of the judgment delivered by theDivision Bench, were not proper and therefore, the selectionmade by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission should nothave been set aside, especially when all the candidates who hadbeen selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission andwho had been appointed to different State services by the Stateof Tamil Nadu were in service for more than 7-8 years with due4efficiency and their effectiveness as officers was neverquestioned even by their superiors or by the State of TamilNadu. It was also submitted that grave injustice would becaused to those officers working for several years as theirservices will be terminated and they will not get any chance toget any employment elsewhere as they have already crossed theage limit for applying for any other government post by virtue ofafflux of time and that too for no fault on their part. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing forthe original petitioners before the High Court submitted thatthe judgment sought to be reviewed is just and proper andtherefore, there is no reason to disturb the said judgment,especially in view of the fact that the review applications hadbeen filed after a long time and it would not be in the interest ofsociety to continue such officers, who had been improperly orirregularly selected. According to the learned counsel, amessage must go to the society that no irregularity committedwhile examining the answer books can be tolerated6. Several submissions were made by the learned counselappearing for the original petitioners before the High Court withregard to use of colour pencils, pens etc. by the candidateswhile answering the question papers. Different views wereexpressed by different counsel even at the stage when thematter was pending before the High Court, when the High5Court had appointed court officers to examine the answerbooks. Different views were expressed by different persons andeven different views were expressed when the answer books hadbeen examined at the instance of this Court by independentexaminers of Union Public Service Commission. Be that as itmay, at this stage, when the candidates who were appointedand who have been working as State Officers for more than 10years or so and when the examiners, who have rechecked theanswer books, have expressed little different views and in viewof the fact that the selected candidates did not get anyopportunity to represent their cases before the High Court asvery little time was given to them to appear before the HighCourt, it would be just and proper to review the judgment. 7. It is not in dispute that notices had been issued by theHigh Court to the selected candidates, which were madereturnable on 2 nd March, 2011 and the matter had been finallydecided on 4 th March, 2011. It is thus clear that sufficient timewas not given to the selected candidates to represent theircases before the High Court and the said fact has been nowbrought to the notice of this Court. Thus, the submission madeon behalf of the selected candidates are found to be correct andin fact they did not get adequate opportunity to represent theircase effectively before the learned Single Judge.8. Having overall view of the matter, in the interest of6administration as well as in the interest of the candidates, who

have already passed the examination held by Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission and have been appointed by the State ofTamil Nadu in State services before several years, in exercise ofpowers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we directthat the candidates who have been working in different servicesof Tamil Nadu State shall be continued in service,notwithstanding any order passed by the Division Bench ofMadras High Court and confirmed by this Court.9. We have adopted this course mainly for the reasonthat the selected candidates did not get sufficient opportunityto represent their case before the High Court, as statedhereinabove and upon hearing the concerned counsel and uponperusal of the record and report received from Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission as well as Union Public ServiceCommission, we also find that the mistakes, if any, committedby the candidates who have now been selected, were very oftenignored and therefore, it would not be just and proper to takesuch a harsh view in the matter so as to render severalreasonably good officers working for several years jobless.Moreover, in any case, the original petitioners who had filed thepetition, are not likely to have any benefit because in any casethey had failed at the examination held by Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission and therefore, there is no question of7giving any appointment to them at this stage.10. For the aforestated reasons the review applications areallowed only to the above extent by exercising our power underArticle 142 of the Constitution of India. All interlocutoryapplications and the contempt petitions are also disposed ofaccordingly..â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦.J. (ANIL R. DAVE)â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦ ..J. (DIPAK MISRA)NEW DELHISEPTEMBER 15, 2016.8REVISEDITEM NO.1C COURT NO.2 SECTION XII(For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. Nos.15-18/2014 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)WITHI.A. NO.3 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 & R.P.(C) NO.2624/2014 IN C.A. No.5879/2014I.A. Nos.23-24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014I.A. Nos.41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 & R.P.(c) No.2119/2014 in CA. No.5884/2014R.P.(C) Nos.2025-2026/2014 in C.A. Nos.5877-5878/2014C.P.(C) D 31357/2014 IN I.A. Nos.15-16 in C.A. Nos. 5882-5883/2014C.P.(C) D 31358/2014 IN I.A. No.24 in C.A. Nos. 5880-5881/2014R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014R.P.(C) Nos.210-211/2015 in C.A. Nos.5880-5881/2014R.P.(C) Nos.201-202/2015 in C.A. Nos.5882-5883/2014 Date : 15/09/2016 These matters were called on for pronouncementof judgment.For Appellant(s)Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AORMs. Nithya,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,AOR

Mr. V. Balachandran,AOR Mr. V. G. Pragasam,AORMr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv.9Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv.Mrs. Malavika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,AOR Mr. S. Srinivasan,AORIn RP.201-202/15 Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,AORFor Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,AOR Mr. B. Balaji,AORMr. Muthu Vel Palani,Adv.Mr. Aravind Athithan,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,AOR Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran,AOR Mr. C. K. Sasi,AORMr. G. Ananda Selvam,Adv.Mr. K. Mayil Samy,Adv.Mr. Ram Sankar,Adv.Mr. Y. Lokesh,Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure,AOR Ms. T. Anamika,AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,AORMs. Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam,Adv.Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,AOR Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,AORMr. Anant Varma,Adv.Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,AORMr. Ashok K. Mahajan,AORMr. S. Muthu Krishnan,Adv.Mr. Reegan S. Bell,Adv.Honble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the judgment ofthe Bench comprising His Lordship and Honble Mr. Justice DipakMisra.10 ...8. Having overall view of the matter,in the interest of administration as well asin the interest of the candidates, who havealready passed the examination held by TamilNadu Public Service Commission and have beenappointed by the State of Tamil Nadu in Stateservices before several years, in exercise ofpowers under Article 142 of the Constitutionof India, we direct that the candidates whohave been working in different services ofTamil Nadu State shall be continued inservice, notwithstanding any order passed bythe Division Bench of Madras High Court andconfirmed by this Court.9. We have adopted this course mainly forthe reason that the selected candidates didnot get sufficient opportunity to representtheir case before the High Court, as statedhereinabove and upon hearing the concernedcounsel and upon perusal of the record andreport received from Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission as well as Union Public ServiceCommission, we also find that the mistakes, ifany, committed by the candidates who have nowbeen selected, were very often ignored andtherefore, it would not be just and proper totake such a harsh view in the matter so as torender several reasonably good officersworking for several years jobless. Moreover,in any case, the original petitioners who had

filed the petition, are not likely to have anybenefit because in any case they had failed atthe examination held by Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission and therefore, there is noquestion of giving any appointment to them atthis stage.10. For the aforestated reasons the reviewapplications are allowed only to the aboveextent by exercising our power under Article142 of the Constitution of India. Allinterlocutory applications and the contemptpetitions are also disposed of accordingly. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SNEH BALA MEHRA) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(Signed 'Reportable' Judgment is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS.15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s).5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification) WITH I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5879/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.23-24 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.41-42 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (For modification/clarification and permission to file additional documents and Office Report) I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5884/2014 & R.P.(C)No.2119/2014 in CA 5884/2014 (For modification and Office Report) R.P.(C)Nos.2025-2026/2014 In C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C) No........./2014 (Diary No.31357/2014) in I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C)No......../2014 (Diary No.31358/2014) in I.A.No.24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 In C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and appln.(s) for application for hearing in open court) R.P.(C)Nos.210-211/2015 In C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and for hearing in open court) R.P.(C)Nos.201-202/2015 In C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and directions) 1

Date : 17/09/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)/Applicants : Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Mr. Niraimati,Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv. Mr. R. Thirumalai,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Ms. Malvika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. For Respondent(s) State of Tamil Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AG Nadu Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Sr.Adv.(AAG) Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma,Adv. Ms. R. Shase,Adv. Mr. Harin P. Raval,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anand Varma,Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,Adv. Ms. Divya Anand,Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva,Adv. Mr. S. Mutu Krishnan,Adv. Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran Ayyar,Adv. Mr. G. Ananda Selvam,Adv. Mr. Mayil Samy K.,Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar,Adv. For Mr. R.K. Adsure,Adv. 2

Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Reegan S. Bal,Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria,Adv. Mr. Subrata Sas,Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,learned Attorney General, started his arguments at 2.00 p.m. and concluded at 2.30 p.m. Then, Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, made his submissions till 2.40 p.m. Thereafter, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, Mr. N. Subramaniyan, learned counsel and Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, learned counsel, made their submissions for few minutes. Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar List of books : 1. 1988 (2) SCC 602 2. 1993 (Supp.4) SCC 595 3. 1992 (2) SCC 206 4. 1984 (2) SCC 500 5. 1992 (4) SCC 477 6. 2013 (8) SCC 320 7. 2014 (8) SCALE 150 3

Listed on 17.9.2015 Court No. Item No. SECTION XII IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 15-16 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 17-18 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 filed by Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 19-20 (Application for intervention in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 filed by Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 21 (Application for directions in Civil Appeal No. 5877 of 2014.) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 23-24 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31358 OF 2014 IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 41-42 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 43-44 (Application for permission to file additional affidavit in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31357 OF 2014 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5882-5883 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2628-2629 OF 2014 AND REVIEW PETITION NOS. 201-202 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for modification/clarification in Civil Appeal No. 5879 of 2014) WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2624 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for modification/clarification in Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2025-2026 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 ...2/-

-2- WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2232-2233 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1-2(in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014) (Application for U/S 340, r/w Sec. 195 CrPC, 1973 cause initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents Under Sec. 193 of IPC) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 3-4 (in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014 ) (Application for recall of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21 st January, 2015) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 5-6 (in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014) (Application for recall of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21 st January, 2015) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 7-8 (in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014) (Application for recall of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21 st January, 2015) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION D. NO. 34705 of 2015 (in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014) (Application for U/S 340, r/w Sec. 195 CrPC, 1973 cause initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents Under Sec. 193 of IPC) Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission .....Appellant Versus A.B. Natarajan & Ors. etc. ....Respondents ...3/-

-3- OFFICE REPORT The Interlocutory Applications above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 6 th May , 201 5, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order:- “ In pursuance of order dated 21 st January, 2015, we have received communication from the Secretary of the UPSC. Along with the said communication we have also received a report of the expert. A copy of the said communication, along with the report of the expert, be furnished by the Registry to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The copies shall be made in such a manner that the name of the person, who has given his opinion, shall not be revealed anywhere. It would be open to the learned counsel to furnish their response within four weeks from today. List the matters on 19 th August, 2015, at 2.00 p.m. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue until further orders. ” It is submitted that in compliance of the above quoted order, Mr. Ravider K. Adsure, Advocate, has on 1 st July, 2015 filed response to the report of the expert and to the comments of the UPSC in respect of Mr. S. Madhavan (first respondent in Interlocutory Application No. 16 in Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2014). He has on 12 th August, 2015 also filed objections to the report of the expert and comments of the UPSC in respect of contesting respondent No. 1. Mr. Jogy Scaria, Advocate, has on 9 th July, 2015 filed response to the report of the expert and comments to the UPSC in respect of the applicant Nos. 1 to 4 in application for intervention. Copies of the response filed by the Advocates have been placed with appeal paper books. It is further submitted that Mr. R.M. Patnaik, Advocate for appellant No. 6 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014, has on 16 th September, 2015 filed additional documents. Copy of the same is placed with appeal paper books. ...4/-

-4- It is further submitted that Mr. Ravider K. Adsure, Advocate in Interlocutory Application No. 3 in Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2014, has on 12 th August, 2015 filed an application for directions on behalf of respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 5877 of 2014, seeking to dismiss the clarification/modification Interlocutory Application No. 15 of 2014 of the common judgment dated 30 th June, 2014, which has been registered as Interlocutory Application No. 21 and copy of the same has been placed with the appeal paper books. It is lastly submitted that Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate in Interlocutory Application No. 5884 of 2014, has on 17 th August, 2015 filed response to the report of the expert and comments to the UPSC, which has been placed with appeal paper books. The applications alongwith review petitions and contempts in the matters above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this, the 16 th day of September, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate MS. T. Anamika, Advocate Mr. C.K. Sasi, Advocate Ms. Geetha Kovilan, Advocate Mr. Sureshan P., Advocate Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate Mr. Ashok k. Mahajan, Advocate Ms. Binu Tamta, Advocate Ms. R.V. Kameshwaran Ayyar, Advocate Mr. Ravider K. Adsure, Advocate Mr. Jogy Scaria, Advocate Mr. Varinder K. Sharma, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vk

ø* ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS.15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s).5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification) WITH I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5879/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.23-24 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.41-42 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (For modification/clarification and permission to file additional documents and Office Report) I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5884/2014 & R.P.(C)No.2119/2014 in CA 5884/2014 (For modification and Office Report) R.P.(C)Nos.2025-2026/2014 In C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C) No........./2014 (Diary No.31357/2014) in I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C)No......../2014 (Diary No.31358/2014) in I.A.No.24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 In C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and appln.(s) for application for hearing in open court) R.P.(C)Nos.210-211/2015 In C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and for hearing in open court) R.P.(C)Nos.201-202/2015 In C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition andSignature Not Verified directions)Digitally signed bySarita PurohitDate: 2015.09.1912:30:49 ISTReason: 1Date : 17/09/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA

For Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)/Applicants : Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Mr. Niraimati,Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv. Mr. R. Thirumalai,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Ms. Malvika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv.For Respondent(s)State of Tamil Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AGNadu Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Sr.Adv.(AAG) Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma,Adv. Ms. R. Shase,Adv. Mr. Harin P. Raval,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anand Varma,Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,Adv. Ms. Divya Anand,Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva,Adv. Mr. S. Mutu Krishnan,Adv. Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran Ayyar,Adv. Mr. G. Ananda Selvam,Adv. Mr. Mayil Samy K.,Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar,Adv. For Mr. R.K. Adsure,Adv. 2 Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. Reegan S. Bal,Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria,Adv. Mr. Subrata Sas,Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,learned Attorney General, started his arguments at 2.00 p.m. and concluded at 2.30 p.m. Then, Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, made his

submissions till 2.40 p.m. Thereafter, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, Mr. N. Subramaniyan, learned counsel and Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, learned counsel, made their submissions for few minutes. Hearing concluded. Judgment reserved. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant RegistrarList of books :1. 1988 (2) SCC 6022. 1993 (Supp.4) SCC 5953. 1992 (2) SCC 2064. 1984 (2) SCC 5005. 1992 (4) SCC 4776. 2013 (8) SCC 3207. 2014 (8) SCALE 150 3

ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS.15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s).5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification) WITH I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5879/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.23-24 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.41-42 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (For modification/clarification and permission to file additional documents and Office Report) I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5884/2014 (For modification and Office Report) R.P.(C)Nos.2025-2026/2014 In C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C)No........./2014 (Diary No.31357/2014) in I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C)No......../2014 (Diary No.31358/2014) in I.A.No.24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 In C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and appln.(s) for application for hearing in open court) R.P.(C)Nos.201-202/2015 In C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and directions) R.P.(C)Nos.210-211/2015 In C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and for hearing in open court) 1

Date : 06/05/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Gopal Subramonium,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Mr. Niraimati,Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade,Sr.Adv. Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv. Mr. R. Thirumalai,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv. Mr. Harin P. Raval,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anand Varma,Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. G. Ananda Selvam,Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar,Adv. For Mr. R.K. Adsure,Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Dhawan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Reegan S. Bal,Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma,Adv. Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Ms. Malvika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,Adv. State of T.N. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Sr.Adv.(AAG) Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma,Adv. Mr. Manav Vohra,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. S. Mutu Krishnan,Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva,Adv. Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran Ayyar,Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh,Adv. 2

UPSC Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi,Adv. Mr. N. Subramanian,Adv. Mr. Subrata Das,Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria,Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirasagar,Adv. Ms. Vaishali Dixit,Adv. Ms. Vaishanavi Subrahmanyam,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In pursuance of order dated 21 st January, 2015, we have received communication from the Secretary of the UPSC. Along with the said communication we have also received a report of the expert. A copy of the said communication, along with the report of the expert, be furnished by the Registry to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The copies shall be made in such a manner that the name of the person, who has given his opinion, shall not be revealed anywhere. It would be open to the learned counsel to furnish their response within four weeks from today. 3

List the matters on 19 th August, 2015, at 2.00 p.m. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue until further orders. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar *Copies of the original reports are given to the learned Registrar (Judicial) of the concerned Branch. 4

Listed on 6.5.2015 Court No. 03 Item No. 301 SECTION XII IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 15-16 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 17-18 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 filed by Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 19-20 (Application for intervention in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 filed by Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 23-24 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31358 OF 2014 IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 41-42 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 43-44 (Application for permission to file additional affidavit in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31357 OF 2014 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5882-5883 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2628-2629 OF 2014 AND REVIEW PETITION NOS. 201-202 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for modification/clarification in Civil Appeal No. 5879 of 2014) WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2624 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for modification/clarification in Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2025-2026 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 ...2/-

-2- WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2232-2233 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1-2(in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014) (Application for U/S 340, r/w Sec. 195 CrPC, 1973 cause initiation of criminal proceddings against the respondents Under Sec. 193 of IPC) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 3-4 (in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014 ) (Application for recall of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21 st January, 2015) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 5-6 (in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014) (Application for recall of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21 st January, 2015) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 7-8 (in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014) (Application for recall of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21 st January, 2015) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION D. NO. 34705 of 2015 (in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 in Civil Appeal No. 5877-5878 of 2014) (Application for U/S 340, r/w Sec. 195 CrPC, 1973 cause initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents Under Sec. 193 of IPC) Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission .....Appellant Versus A.B. Natarajan & Ors. etc. ....Respondents ...3/-

-3- OFFICE REPORT The Interlocutory Applications above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 21 st January , 201 5, when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass the following Order:- “In pursuance of notice issued on 19.11.2014 to the Union Public Service Commission (in short, “UPSC“, Ms. Binu tamta, learned counsel, has appeared for the UPSC. Heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties at length. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in all 91 candidates' answer sheets were in dispute. Out of the said 91 candidates' whose answer sheets were questioned, it has been submitted at the Bar that 15 candidates have already resigned, while 3 candidates did not join service and eight candidates have been declared successful by the High Court. Thus, in all, the dispute is with regard to 65 answer sheets. It is directed that the said answer sheets shall be forwarded by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short, “TNPSC”) to the UPSC for the following purpose :- The UPSC shall forward the said answer sheets to an expert, who shall not re-examine those answer sheets but shall examine whether the candidates answering the questions had given any indication in the answer sheets to reveal their identity. The expert shall also note the fact that the High Court had examined the answer sheets and had cleared 8 answer sheets, wherein the candidates had not given any indication with regard to their identity. The expert shall forward his report to the UPSC and the said report shall be forwarded by the UPSC along with its comments in a sealed cover to this Court. The expert shall look into the said 8 answer sheets for the purpose of ascertaining the basis upon which, the said eight answer sheets were found flawless and follow the same criteria. The TNPSC shall forward the 8 answer sheets which have been cleared by the High court of Madras to the UPSC. Thus, two sets of answer sheets, namely, 65 & 8 shall be put in two separate sealed covers and be forwarded to the UPSC along with all the instructions which had been given to the candidates who had undertaken the examination within two weeks from today. The UPSC shall complete the aforesaid exercise within two months from the date of receipts of the aforesaid material by it. List on 06.05.2015 at 02.00 PM. Interim order, granted on 27.08.2014, shall continue. ” ...4/-

-4- It is submitted that in compliance to above quoted order, certified copies of the record of proceedings has been sent to the High Court of Madras as well as Secretary, Union Public Service Commission but report from the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission has not been received so far. It is further submitted that Mr. R.V. Kameshawaran Ayyar, Advocate has filed two applications, one application Under Section 340, r/w Sec. 195 CrPC, 1973 to cause initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents Under Sec. 193 of IPC for offences of giving and fabricating false evidence and another application for recall of Hon'ble Court' s order dated 21 st January, 2015 in the matters above mentioned. Both the applications have been registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 1-2 and 3-4 respectively. It is further submitted that M/s. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocates have filed applications to recall of Hon'ble Court's order dated 21 st January, 2015 and the same have been registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 5-6 and 7-8 respectively. It is further submitted that Mr. Jogy Scaria, Advocate for proposed intervenors has filed applications Under Section 340, r/w Sec. 195 CrPC, 1973 to cause initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents Under Sec. 193 of IPC. He has filed the applications in Interlocutory Application Nos. 19-20 (application for Intervention), which is pending. Therefore, unregistered Interlocutory Applications are placed for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. The applications alongwith review petitions and contempts in the matters above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this, the 5 th day of May, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

COPY TO: Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate MS. T. Anamika, Advocate Mr. C.K. Sasi, Advocate Ms. Geetha Kovilan, Advocate Mr. Sureshan P., Advocate Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate Mr. Ashok k. Mahajan, Advocate Ms. Binu Tamta, Advocate Ms. R.V. Kameshwaran Ayyar, Advocate Mr. Ravidar K. Adsure, Advocate Mr. Jogy Scaria, Advocate Mr. Varinder K. Sharma, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR vk

°+ ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS.15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s).5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification) WITH I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5879/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.23-24 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.41-42 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (For modification/clarification and permission to file additional documents and Office Report) I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5884/2014 (For modification and Office Report) R.P.(C)Nos.2025-2026/2014 In C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C)No........./2014 (Diary No.31357/2014) in I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C)No......../2014 (Diary No.31358/2014) in I.A.No.24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 R.P.(C) Nos.2628-2629/2014 In C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and appln.(s) for application for hearing in open court) R.P.(C)Nos.201-202/2015 In C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and directions) R.P.(C)Nos.210-211/2015 In C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing review petition andSignature Not Verified for hearing in open court)Digitally signed bySarita PurohitDate: 2015.05.0816:38:08 ISTReason: 1Date : 06/05/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Appellant(s) Mr. Gopal Subramonium,Sr.Adv.

Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Mr. Niraimati,Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade,Sr.Adv. Mr. A.K. Ganguli,Sr.Adv. Mr. R. Thirumalai,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv. Mr. Harin P. Raval,Sr.Adv. Mr. Anand Varma,Adv. Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik,Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee,Adv. Mr. G. Ananda Selvam,Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar,Adv. For Mr. R.K. Adsure,Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Dhawan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Reegan S. Bal,Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma,Adv. Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Ms. Malvika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,Adv.State of T.N. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Sr.Adv.(AAG) Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma,Adv. Mr. Manav Vohra,Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv. Mr. S. Mutu Krishnan,Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva,Adv. Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran Ayyar,Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh,Adv. 2UPSC Ms. Binu Tamta,Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi,Adv. Mr. N. Subramanian,Adv. Mr. Subrata Das,Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria,Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirasagar,Adv. Ms. Vaishali Dixit,Adv. Ms. Vaishanavi Subrahmanyam,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

In pursuance of order dated 21st January, 2015, we have received communication from the Secretary of the UPSC. Along with the said communication we have also received a report of the expert. A copy of the said communication, along with the report of the expert, be furnished by the Registry to the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The copies shall be made in such a manner that the name of the person, who has given his opinion, shall not be revealed anywhere. It would be open to the learned counsel to furnish their response within four weeks from today. 3 List the matters on 19th August, 2015, at 2.00 p.m. Ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continueuntil further orders.(Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar *Copies of the original reports are given to the learned Registrar (Judicial) of the concerned Branch. 4

1 ITEM NO.301+303 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (for modification/clarification and office report) WITH I.A.No. 3 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos. 23—24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) R.P. (C) 210-211 of 2015 in C.A.No. 5880-5881/2014 (for c/delay in filing Review Petition and for oral hearing) I.A.Nos. 41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) I.A.No. 3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification and Office Report) R.P.(C) No. 2025-2026/2014 In C.A. No. 5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C) D 31357/2014 IN I.A.Nos. 15-16/2014 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C) D 31358/2014 In I.A.No. 24/2014 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 with R.P. (C) 2628-2629 of 2014 in C.A.No. 5882-5883/2014 (with application for hearing in open court and c/delay in filing Review Petition) R.P. (C) 201-202/2015 in C. A. No. 5882-5883 of 2014 (with application for c/delay in filing Review Petition and directions)

2 Date : 21/01/2015 These applications and petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Attorney General Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Meha Agarwal, Adv Ms. Shase, Adv. Mr. Paramveer, Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, Adv. Mr. A. K. Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Thirmulani, Adv. For Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. Niraimati, Adv. Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. H. P. Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Verma, Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mrs. Malavika J., Adv. For Mr. Sureshan P., Adv. I.A.No. 19-20 Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. B. V. Chandan, Adv. Mr. M. Y. K. Moorthy, Adv. Mr. Pranava Sachadeva, Adv. For Mrs. T. Anamika, Adv.

3 Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In pursuance of notice issued on 19.11.2014 to the Union Public Service Commission (in short, “UPSC”), Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel, has appeared for the UPSC. Heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties at length. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that in all 91 candidates' answer sheets were in dispute. Out of the said 91 candidates, whose answer sheets were questioned, it has been submitted at the Bar that 15 candidates have already resigned, while 3 candidates did not join service and eight candidates have been declared successful by the High Court. Thus, in all, the dispute is with regard to 65 answer sheets. It is directed that the said answer sheets shall be forwarded by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (in short, “TNPSC”) to the UPSC for the following purpose :- The UPSC shall forward the said answer sheets to an expert, who shall not re-examine those answer sheets but shall examine whether the candidates answering the questions had given any indication in the answer sheets to reveal their identity. The expert shall also note the fact that the High Court had examined the answer sheets and had cleared 8 answer sheets, wherein the candidates had not given any indication

4 with regard to their identity. The expert shall forward his report to the UPSC and the said report shall be forwarded by the UPSC along with its comments in a sealed cover to this Court. The expert shall look into the said 8 answer sheets for the purpose of ascertaining the basis upon which, the said eight answer sheets were found flawless and follow the same criteria. The TNPSC shall forward the 8 answer sheets which have been cleared by the High Court of Madras to the UPSC. Thus, two sets of answer sheets, namely, 65 & 8 shall be put in two separate sealed covers and be forwarded to the UPSC along with all the instructions which had been given to the candidates who had undertaken the examination within two weeks from today. The UPSC shall complete the aforesaid exercise within two months from the date of receipt of the aforesaid material by it. List on 06.05.2015 at 02.00 PM. Interim order, granted on 27.08.2014, shall continue. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Sr. P.A. (Sneh Bala Mehra) Assistant Registrar

Listed on 21.1.2015 Court No. Item No. SECTION XII IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 15-16 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 17-18 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 filed by Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 19-20 (Application for intervention in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 filed by Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 23-24 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31358 OF 2014 IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 41-42 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 43-44 (Application for permission to file additional affidavit in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31357 OF 2014 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5882-5883 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2628-2629 OF 2014 AND REVIEW PETITION NOS. 201-202 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for modification/clarification in Civil Appeal No. 5879 of 2014) WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2624 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for modification/clarification in Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2025-2026 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 ...2/-

-2- WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2232-2233 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014 Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission .....Appellant Versus A.B. Natarajan & Ors. etc. ....Respondents OFFICE REPORT The Interlocutory Applications above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 19 th November , 2014 when the Court was pleased to pass the following Order:- “ The Union Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, is joined as party-respondent. Issue notice to the Union Public Service Commission, returnable on 21 st January, 2015, at 2.00 p.m. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission represented by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned Advocate -on-Record, shall do the needful by paying process fee and serving copies of these cases to the Commission. ” It is submitted that show cause notice in the main matter i.e. Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-18 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 has been issued to the Union Public Service Commission returnable for 21 st January, 2015. Neither A.D card nor unserved cover containing the notice has been received back from the Union Public Service Commission. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 It is submitted that show cause notice in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 was issued to 91 respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5877 of 2014 and 3 respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2014 through speed post. Service of show cause notice in applications is complete on all the respondents except ….3/-

-3- respondent Nos. 5, 11-12, 15-16, 30-31, 33, 39, 40, 54, 77, 85, 88 and 91 in Civil Appeal No. 5877 of 2014. There are three respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2014. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are represented through Ms. T. Anamika and Mr. B. Balaji, Advocates respectively in Civil Appeals. Respondent No. 2 is common in both the Civil Appeals. It is further submitted that Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate for respondent No. 3 in Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2014 has on 26 th August, 2014 filed applications for clarification/modification of Court's order dated 30 th June, 2014 on behalf of State of Tamil Nadu which have been registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 17-18. Copy of the same has already been included in the Appeal paper books. As counsel for the petitioner has not filed spare copies, show cause notice could not be issued in Interlocutory Application Nos. 17-18. It is further submitted that Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick, Advocate for the proposed intervenor has on 16 th September, 2014 filed an application for intervention which have been registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 19-20. Copy of the same is already placed with the appeal paper books. It is lastly submitted that Ms. T. Anamika, Advocate for Mr. S. Madhavan, Appellant has on 26 th September, 2014 filed affidavit tendering unconditional apology in filing the counter affidavit and requested therein to withdraw the counter affidavit. She has also on 7 th November, 2014 and 11 th November, 2014 filed counter affidavit in Interlocutory Application Nos. 16 and 18, respectively. Copy of the affidavits mentioned above have already been included in the Interlocutory Application paper books. REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2025-2026 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate has been filed Review Petition and the same has been registered as Review Petition Nos. 2025-2026 of 2014. Show cause notice in terms of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 27 th August, 2014 was issued to ...4/-

-4- 91 respondents in Review Petition No. 2025 of 2014 and 3 respondents in Review Petition No. 2026 of 2014 through speed post. Service report has been received in respect of Respondent Nos. 1 to 52 and from Respondent Nos. 53 to 93 in Review Petition No. 2025 of 2014 and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Review Petition No. 2026 of 2014 could not be obtained as the bar codding was not available. It is further submitted that Mr. Sureshan P., Advocate has filed a separate letter in Review Petition and Interlocutory Applications stating therein that he has accepted notice in respect of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 37, 41, 46, 49, 52, 63, 66 and 80. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate has also filed a letter stating therein that he has accepted notice in respect of respondent Nos. 4, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 35, 36, 42, 48, 51, 52, 55, 65 and 92 but they have not filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on their behalf. It is further submitted that Ms. T. Anamika, Advocate for first respondent has on filed 7 th November, 2014 filed counter affidavit in Review Petition No. 2026 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2014 and Mr. B. Rama Moorthy, Advocate for respondent Nos. 13, 30, 31, 33, 38, 53, 91 in Review Petition No. 2025 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 5877 of 2014. Copy of the same has been included in the Review Petition paper books. REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2232-2233 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate has on 12 th September, 2014 filed Review Petition to review the Hon'ble Court's order dated 30 th June, 2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay and application for exemption from filing official translation and the same have been registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 1-2 and 3-4. Copy of the same have already been placed with Civil Appeal paper books. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5879 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate has not filed sparec copies for effecting service on the respondents, hence show cause notice could not be issued on Interlocutory Application No. 3. ….5/-

-5- It is further submitted that there are two respondents in the instant Civil Appeal. Respondent No. 1 is represented through Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Advocate. Respondent No. 2 is represented through Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate. It is further submitted that Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate has on 29th Octoeber, 2014 filed Supplementary affidavit in Interlocutory Application No. 3. Copy of the same has been included in the Interlocutory Application No. 3 paper books. REVIEW PETITION NO. 2624 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5879 OF 2014. It is submitted that Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate has on 7 th November, 2014 filed Review Petition to review the Hon'ble Court's Order dated 30 th June, 2014. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5880-5881 OF 2014 It is submitted to the Hon'ble Court that in terms of order dated 24th August, 2014 show cause notice was issued in Interlocutory Application Nos. 23-24 to all the 10 respondents on 8th September, 2014 through speed post and proof of service has been received. It is further submitted that Ms. T. Anamika, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014 has on 16th August, 2014 filed counter affidavit in the Interlocutory Application No. 24 and Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on 17th August, 2014 in Interlocutory Application Nos. 23-24 in respect of respondent Nos. 7, 9 and 10 respectively. Copy of the same has already been included in the Civil Appeal paper books. Service of show cause notice in Interlocutory Application Nos. 23-24 is complete. It is lastly submitted that Ms. T. Anamika, Advocate for Mr. S. Madhavan, Appellant has on 26 th September, 2014 filed affidavit tendering unconditional apology in filing the counter affidavit and requested therein to withdraw the counter affidavit. She has also on 31 st October, 2014 filed counter affidavit in Interlocutory Application Nos. 23-24. Copy of the affidavits mentioned above have already been included in the Interlocutory Application paper books. ….6/-

-6- CONTEMPT PETITION D.NO. 31358 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5880-5881 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Counsel for the petitioner has on 22 nd September, 2014 filed Contempt Petition in Interlocutory Application No. 24 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014 which is defective for the reason that the same does not comply with the requirement of Rules 3 to regulate proceeding for contempt of Supreme Court Rules, 1975. The Petition is being circulated before the Hon'ble Court in view of the order dated 22 nd September, 2014. REVIEW PETITION D.NO. 37351 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5880-5881 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate has on 14 th November, 2014 filed Review Petition to review this Hon'ble Court's order dated 30 th June, 2014 alongwith application for condonation of delay in filing Review Petition and application for oral hearing in open Court, which are defective for the following reasons that cause title of the Review Petition is wrong. Unregistered Review Petition is placed alongwith main Civil Appeal paper books. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5882-5883 OF 2014 It is submitted that in terms of the Hon'ble Court's order quoted above, show cause notice was issued in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42 to all the 11 respondent through speed post on 4 th September, 2014 and proof of service has been received from all the respondents. It is further submitted that Ms. T. Anamika, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on 16 th Sepember, 2014 in respect of respondent No. 1 in Interlocutory Application No. 42. Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate has on 17 th September 2014 filed counter affidavit in respect of respondent No. 7, 9, 10 & 3 to 6 in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42. Copy of same have been included in the Special Leave Petition paper books. Service of show cause notice in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42 is complete. ….7/-

-7- It is lastly submitted that Ms. T. Anamika, Advocate for Mr. S. Madhavan, Appellant has on 26 th September, 2014 filed affidavit tendering unconditional apology in filing the counter affidavit and requested therein to withdraw the counter affidavit. She has also on 31 st October, 2014 filed counter affidavit in Interlocutory Application Nos. 42-43. Copy of the affidavits mentioned above have already been included in the Interlocutory Application paper books. CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31357 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5882-5883 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. Sureshan P., Counsel for the petitioner has on 22 nd September, 2014 filed Contempt Petition in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014 which is defective for the reason that the same does not comply with the requirement of Rules 3 to regulate proceeding for contempt of Supreme Court Rules, 1975. The Petition is being circulated before the Hon'ble Court in view of the order dated 22 nd September, 2014. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 43-44 OF 2014 in INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 41-42 OF 2014. It is further submitted that Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocate has filed an application for permission to file Additional affidavit on record and the same is registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 43-44. Copy of the same has been included in the appeal paper books. REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2628-2629 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 5882-5883 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. Sureshan P., Advocate has on 27 th October, 2014 filed Review Petition to review the Hon'ble Court's Order dated 30 th June, 2014, which has been registered as Review Petition Nos. 2628-2629 of 2014. REVIEW PETITION NOS. 201-202 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 5882-5883 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. Ashok . Mahajan, Advocate has on 17th Ocotebr, 2014 filed Review Petition to review the Hon'ble Court's Order dated 30 th June, 2014, which has been registered as Review Petition Nos. 201-202 of 2015. ...8/-

-8- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Counsel for the Appellant has filed Review Petition to review the Hon'ble Court's order dated 30 th June, 2014 which has been registered as Review Petition No. 2119 of 2014 and is placed before the Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Counsel for the Appellant has not filed spare copies, therefore, show cause notice could not be issued in Interlocutory Application No. 3. REVIEW PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate has on 14 th August, 2014 filed Review Petitions to review the Hon'ble Court's order dated 30 th June, 2014 alongwith applications for condonation of delay, exemption from filing certified copy, stay and grant of personal hearing and the same have been registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 1, 2,3 & 4 respectively. The applications alongwith the matters above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this, the 20 th day of January, 2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate MS. T. Anamika, Advocate Mr. C.K. Sasi, Advocate Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Geetha Kovilan, Advocate Mr. Sureshan P., Advocate Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate Mr. Ashok k. Mahajan, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR hp

\2005 1 ITEM NO.301+303 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (for modification/clarification and office report) WITH I.A.No. 3 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos. 23--24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) R.P. (C) 210-211 of 2015 in C.A.No. 5880-5881/2014 (for c/delay in filing Review Petition and for oral hearing) I.A.Nos. 41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) I.A.No. 3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification and Office Report) R.P.(C) No. 2025-2026/2014 In C.A. No. 5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C) D 31357/2014 IN I.A.Nos. 15-16/2014 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C) D 31358/2014 In I.A.No. 24/2014 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 with R.P. (C) 2628-2629 of 2014 in C.A.No. 5882-5883/2014 (with application for hearing in open court and c/delay in filingSignature Not Verified Review Petition)Digitally signed byJayant Kumar AroraDate: 2015.01.2216:08:25 IST R.P. (C) 201-202/2015 in C. A. No. 5882-5883 of 2014Reason: (with application for c/delay in filing Review Petition and directions) 2Date : 21/01/2015 These applications and petitions were called onfor hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Attorney General Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG

Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Meha Agarwal, Adv Ms. Shase, Adv. Mr. Paramveer, Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, Adv. Mr. A. K. Ganguly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Thirmulani, Adv. For Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. Niraimati, Adv. Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. H. P. Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Verma, Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mrs. Malavika J., Adv. For Mr. Sureshan P., Adv.I.A.No. 19-20 Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick, Adv. Mr. Kunal Malik, Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv.For Respondent(s) Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. B. V. Chandan, Adv. Mr. M. Y. K. Moorthy, Adv. Mr. Pranava Sachadeva, Adv. For Mrs. T. Anamika, Adv. 3 Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In pursuance of notice issued on 19.11.2014 to the UnionPublic Service Commission (in short, "UPSC"), Ms. Binu Tamta,learned counsel, has appeared for the UPSC. Heard the learned counsel appearing for all the partiesat length. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we findthat in all 91 candidates' answer sheets were in dispute. Outof the said 91 candidates, whose answer sheets werequestioned, it has been submitted at the Bar that 15candidates have already resigned, while 3 candidates did not

join service and eight candidates have been declaredsuccessful by the High Court. Thus, in all, the dispute iswith regard to 65 answer sheets. It is directed that the said answer sheets shall beforwarded by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (inshort, "TNPSC") to the UPSC for the following purpose :- The UPSC shall forward the said answer sheets to anexpert, who shall not re-examine those answer sheets but shallexamine whether the candidates answering the questions hadgiven any indication in the answer sheets to reveal theiridentity. The expert shall also note the fact that the HighCourt had examined the answer sheets and had cleared 8 answersheets, wherein the candidates had not given any indication 4with regard to their identity. The expert shall forward hisreport to the UPSC and the said report shall be forwarded bythe UPSC along with its comments in a sealed cover to thisCourt. The expert shall look into the said 8 answer sheets forthe purpose of ascertaining the basis upon which, the saideight answer sheets were found flawless and follow the samecriteria. The TNPSC shall forward the 8 answer sheets which havebeen cleared by the High Court of Madras to the UPSC. Thus,two sets of answer sheets, namely, 65 & 8 shall be put in twoseparate sealed covers and be forwarded to the UPSC along withall the instructions which had been given to the candidateswho had undertaken the examination within two weeks fromtoday. The UPSC shall complete the aforesaid exercise within twomonths from the date of receipt of the aforesaid material byit. List on 06.05.2015 at 02.00 PM. Interim order, granted on 27.08.2014, shall continue.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant Registrar

REVISED ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS.15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s).5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification and office report) WITH I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5879/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.23-24 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (For modification/clarification and Interim Relief and Office Report) I.A.Nos.41-42 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5884/2014 (For modification and Office Report) R.P.(C)Nos.2025-2026/2014 In C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C)No........./2014 (Diary No.31357/2014) in I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C)No......../2014 (Diary No.31358/2014) in I.A.No.24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 Date : 19/11/2014 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv. Ms. Niti Luthra,Adv. 1

Mr. K. Parasaran,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Praburama Subramanian,Adv. Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Ms. Malvika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirasagar,Adv. Ms. Vaishali Dixit,Adv. Ms. Vaishanavi Subrahmanyam,Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AG Mr. Subramonium Prasad,AAG Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma,Adv. Ms. Shase,Adv. Mr. Paramveer,Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan,Adv. Mr. B.V. Chandan,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv. Mr. Prasant Bhushan,Adv. Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy,Adv. Mr. B.V. Chandan,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika,Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi,Adv. Mr. R. Thirumalai,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hege,Adv. Mr. S. Nithin,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra,Adv. Mr. Anil Kr. Mishra-I,Adv. 2

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Union Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, is joined as party-respondent. Issue notice to the Union Public Service Commission, returnable on 21 st January, 2015, at 2.00 p.m. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission represented by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned Advocate -on-Record, shall do the needful by paying process fee and serving copies of these cases to the Commission. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar 3

ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS.15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s).5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification and office report) WITH I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5879/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.Nos.23-24 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (For modification/clarification and Interim Relief and Office Report) I.A.Nos.41-42 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (For modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.No.3 in C.A.No.5884/2014 (For modification and Office Report) R.P.(C)Nos.2025-2026/2014 In C.A.Nos.5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing) CONMT.PET.(C)No........./2014 (Diary No.31357/2014) in I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 CONMT.PET.(C)No......../2014 (Diary No.31358/2014) in I.A.No.24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 Date : 19/11/2014 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv. Ms. Niti Luthra,Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran,Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. 4

Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Praburama Subramanian,Adv. Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Ms. Malvika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirasagar,Adv. Ms. Vaishali Dixit,Adv. Ms. Vaishanavi Subrahmanyam,Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AG Mr. Subramonium Prasad,AAG Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma,Adv. Ms. Shase,Adv. Mr. Paramveer,Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan,Adv. Mr. B.V. Chandan,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv. Mr. Prasant Bhushan,Adv. Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy,Adv. Mr. B.V. Chandan,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika,Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi,Adv. Mr. R. Thirumalai,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hege,Adv. Mr. S. Nithin,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra,Adv. Mr. Anil Kr. Mishra-I,Adv. 5

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Union Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, is joined as party-respondent. Issue notice to the Union Public Service Commission, returnable on 22 nd January, 2015, at 2.00 p.m. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission represented by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned Advocate -on-Record, shall do the needful by paying process fee and serving copies of these cases to the Commission. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar 6

1 ITEM NO.302+308 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS. 15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (for modification/clarification) WITH I.A.No. 3 of 2014 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.No. 23-24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A. No. 41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.No. 3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification and Office Report) R.P.(C) No. 2025-2026/2014 In C.A. No. 5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing and Office Report) with Contempt Petition (C) No. D. 31357 of 2014 in I.A.Nos. 15-16/2014 in C.A.No. 5882-5883 of 2014 Contempt Petition (C) No. D. 31358 of 2014 in I.A.Nos. 24/2014 in C.A.No. 5880-5881 of 2014 Date : 23/09/2014 These applications/petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Attorney General Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. S. Anand, Adv. Ms. Shase, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. V. G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S. J. Aristotle, Adv.

2 Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mrs. Malavika J., Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Ms. Sansurti Pathak, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Ms. T. Anamika, Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. B. V. Chandran, Adv. Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Dixit, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Subramaniam, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. S. Nithin, Adv. For Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I., Adv. Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Niti Luthra, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, has appeared and submitted that he has instructions to appear for the alleged contemnor. He has submitted that the alleged contemnor is also present in the Court and he would like to tender his unconditional apology and shall also withdraw his affidavit. The affidavit to that effect shall be filed within two weeks from today.

3 List on 19.11.2014 at 02.00 PM. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Sr. P.A. (Sneh Bala Mehra) Assistant Registrar

Listed on 23.9.2014 Court No. 4 Item No. 302 SECTION XII IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 15-16 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 17-18 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 filed by Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. (Application for intervention in Civil Appeal Nos. 5877-5878 of 2014 filed by Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 23-24 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31358 OF 2014 IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 41-42 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.6.2014 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31357 OF 2014 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5882-5883 OF 2014 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for modification/clarification in Civil Appeal No. 5879 of 2014) WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 3 (Application for modification/clarification in Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2014) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2025-2026 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 WITH REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2232-2233 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 ….2/-

-2- Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission .....Appellant Versus A.B. Natarajan & Ors. etc. ....Respondents OFFICE REPORT The Interlocutory Applications above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27 th August, 2014 when the Court was pleased to pass the following Order:- “ I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in CA.Nos.5877-78/2014, I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5879/2014, I.A.Nos.23-24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880- 5881/2014, I.A.Nos.41-42/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014, I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5884/2014 and I.A.No......./2014 in C.A.No.5878/2014 : Issue notice on these applications returnable on 23rd September, 2014. List on 23rd September, 2014, at 2.00 p.m. Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained until further orders. R.P.(C)No........./2014 (Diary No.25905/2014) : Taken on board. Issue notice. List this matter on 23 rd September, 2014, along with I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in CA.Nos.5877-78/2014 and batch. ” CONTEMPT PETITION D. NOS. 31357 AND 31358 OF 2014 AND thereafter the Contempt Petitions above mentioned were mentioned before the Hon'ble Court on 22 nd September, 2014 when the Hon'ble Court was pleased to directed to list the said petitions on 23 rd September, 2014 at 2.00 P.M. before an appropriate Bench. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 It is submitted that show cause notice in Interlocutory Application Nos. 15-16 was issued to 91 respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5877 of 2014 and 3 respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2014 through speed post. Service of show cause notice in applications is complete on all the respondents except respondent Nos. 5, 11-12, 15-16, 30-31, 33, 39, 40, 54, 77, 85, 88 and 91 in Civil Appeal No. 5877 of 2014. There are three respondents in Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2014. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are represented through Ms. T. Anamika and Mr. B. Balaji, Advocates respectively in Civil Appeals. Respondent No. 2 is common in both the Civil Appeals. ….3/-

-3- It is further submitted that Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate for respondent No. 3 in Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2014 has on 26 th August, 2014 filed applications for clarification/modification of Court's order dated 30 th June, 2014 on behalf of State of Tamil Nadu which have been registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 17-18. Copy of the same has already been included in the Appeal paper books. As counsel for the petitioner has not filed spare copies, show cause notice could not be issued in Interlocutory Application Nos. 17-18. It is lastly submitted that Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick, Advocate for the proposed intervenor has on 16 th September, 2014 filed an application for intervention but he has not served copy of the same on Mr. Balaji Srinivasan and Mr. C.K. Sasi, Advocates and as Interlocutory Applications for modification in which application for intervention is filed pending, copy of the unregistered application for intervention is being circulated before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. REVIEW PETITION NOS. 2025-2026 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5877-5878 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate has been filed Review Petition and the same has been registered as Review Petition Nos. 2025-2026 of 2014. Show cause notice in terms of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 27 th August, 2014 was issued to 91 respondents in Review Petition No. 2025 of 2014 and 3 respondents in Review Petition No. 2026 of 2014 through speed post. Service report has been received in respect of Respondent Nos. 1 to 52 and from Respondent Nos. 53 to 93 in Review Petition No. 2025 of 2014 and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Review Petition No. 2026 of 2014 could not be obtained as the bar codding was not available. It is further submitted that Mr. Sureshan P., Advocate has filed a separate letter in Review Petition and Interlocutory Applications stating therein that he has accepted notice in respect of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 37, 41, 46, 49, 52, 63, 66 and 80. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate has also filed a letter stating therein that he has accepted ….4/-

-4- notice in respect of respondent Nos. 4, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 24, 27, 35, 36, 42, 48, 51, 52, 55, 65 and 92 but they have not filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on their behalf. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5879 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate has not filed sparec copies for effecting service on the respondents, hence show cause notice could not be issued on Interlocutory Application No. 3. It is further submitted that there are two respondents in the instant Civil Appeal. Respondent No. 1 is represented through Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Advocate. Respondent No. 2 is represented through Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5880-5881 OF 2014 It is submitted to the Hon'ble Court that in terms of order dated 24th August, 2014 show cause notice was issued in Interlocutory Application Nos. 23-24 to all the 10 respondents on 8th September, 2014 through speed post and proof of service has been received. It is further submitted that Ms. T. Anamika, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014 has on 16th August, 2014 filed counter affidavit in the Interlocutory Application No. 24 and Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on 17th August, 2014 in Interlocutory Application Nos. 23-24 in respect of respondent Nos. 7, 9 and 10 respectively. Copy of the same has already been included in the Civil Appeal paper books. Service of show cause notice in Interlocutory Application Nos. 23-24 is complete. CONTEMPT PETITION D.NO. 31358 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5880-5881 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Counsel for the petitioner has on 22 nd September, 2014 filed Contempt Petition in Interlocutory Application No. 24 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-5881 of 2014 which is defective for the reason that the same does not comply with the requirement of Rules 3 to regulate proceeding for contempt of Supreme Court Rules, 1975. The Petition is being circulated before the Hon'ble Court in view of the order dated 22 nd September, 2014. ...5/-

-5- CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5882-5883 OF 2014 It is submitted that in terms of the Hon'ble Court's order quoted above, show cause notice was issued in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42 to all the 11 respondent through speed post on 4 th September, 2014 and proof of service has been received from all the respondents. It is further submitted that Ms. T. Anamika, Advocate has filed counter affidavit on 16 th Sepember, 2014 in respect of respondent No. 1 in Interlocutory Application No. 42. Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate has on 17 th September 2014 filed counter affidavit in respect of respondent No. 7, 9, 10 & 3 to 6 in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42. Copy of same have been included in the Special Leave Petition paper books. Service of show cause notice in Interlocutory Application Nos. 41-42 is complete. CONTEMPT PETITION D. NO. 31357 OF 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5882-5883 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. Sureshan P., Counsel for the petitioner has on 22 nd September, 2014 filed Contempt Petition in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-5883 of 2014 which is defective for the reason that the same does not comply with the requirement of Rules 3 to regulate proceeding for contempt of Supreme Court Rules, 1975. The Petition is being circulated before the Hon'ble Court in view of the order dated 22 nd September, 2014. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014 It is submitted that Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Counsel for the Appellant has filed Review Petition to review the Hon'ble Court's order dated 30 th June, 2014 which has been registered as Review Petition No. 2119 of 2014 and is placed before the Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Counsel for the Appellant has not filed spare copies, therefore, show cause notice could not be issued in Interlocutory Application No. 3. ….6/-

-6- The applications alongwith the matters above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report. Dated this, the 22 nd day of September, 2014 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate Mr. B. Balaji, Advocate Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Advocate MS. T. Anamika, Advocate Mr. C.K. Sasi, Advocate Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Geetha Kovilan, Advocate Mr. Sureshan P., Advocate Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR hp

î 1 ITEM NO.302+308 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.NOS. 15-18 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (for modification/clarification) WITH I.A.No. 3 of 2014 in C.A. No. 5879/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.No. 23-24 in C.A. No. 5880-5881/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A. No. 41-42 in C.A. No. 5882-5883/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification/clarification and Office Report) I.A.No. 3 in C.A. No. 5884/2014 (With appln.(s) for modification and Office Report) R.P.(C) No. 2025-2026/2014 In C.A. No. 5877-5878/2014 (With appln.(s) for oral hearing and Office Report) with Contempt Petition (C) No. D. 31357 of 2014 in I.A.Nos. 15-16/2014 in C.A.No. 5882-5883 of 2014 Contempt Petition (C) No. D. 31358 of 2014 in I.A.Nos. 24/2014 in C.A.No. 5880-5881 of 2014 Date : 23/09/2014 These applications/petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Attorney General Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG Mr. B. Balaji, Adv.Signature Not Verified Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv.Digitally signed by Mr. S. Anand, Adv.Jayant Kumar AroraDate: 2014.09.2616:20:40 IST Ms. Shase, Adv.Reason: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. V. G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S. J. Aristotle, Adv. 2 Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mrs. Malavika J., Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv.

Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Ms. Sansurti Pathak, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Ms. T. Anamika, Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. B. V. Chandran, Adv. Mr. B. Ramanamurthy, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Dixit, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Subramaniam, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. S. Nithin, Adv. For Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I., Adv. Mr. Subhashish Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Niti Luthra, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, has appeared andsubmitted that he has instructions to appear for the allegedcontemnor. He has submitted that the alleged contemnor isalso present in the Court and he would like to tender hisunconditional apology and shall also withdraw his affidavit. The affidavit to that effect shall be filed within twoweeks from today. 3List on 19.11.2014 at 02.00 PM. (Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant Registrar

REVISED ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification) WITH I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5879/2014 (For modification/clarification, with prayer for interim relief and Office Report) I.A.Nos.23-24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (For modification/clarification, with prayer for interim relief and office report) I.A.Nos.41-42/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (For modification/clarification, with prayer for interim relief and office report) I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5884/2014 (For modification and Office Report) I.A.No......./2014 in C.A.No.5878/2014 (For application for modification/clarification) R.P.(C)No........./2014 (Diary No.25905/2014) Date: 27/08/2014 These matters were called on for hearing oday. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. In I.A.Nos.15-16 Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. in CA 5877-78 Mr. Samsriti Pathak,Adv. Mr. Niraimati,Adv. In I.A.No.3 in Mr. K. Parasaran,Sr.Adv. CA 5879 Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. In I.A.Nos.23-24 Mr. P.S. Patwalia,ASG in CA 5880-81 Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. 1

Mr. Praburama Subramanian,Adv. In I.A.Nos.41-42 Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. in CA 5882-83 Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Ms. Malvika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit S. Chadha,Sr.Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirasagar,Adv. Ms. Vaishali Dixit,Adv. Mr. S. Narayanan,Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AG Mr. Subramonium Prasad,AAG Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Shrama,Adv. Mr. Anand Sathiyaseelan,Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Sr.Adv. Mr. Bipin V. Chandan,Adv. Mr. T. Anamika,Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Kovilan,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in CA.Nos.5877-78/2014, I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5879/2014, I.A.Nos.23-24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880- 5881/2014, I.A.Nos.41-42/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014, I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5884/2014 and I.A.No......./2014 in C.A.No.5878/2014 : Issue notice on these applications returnable on 23 rd September, 2014. List on 23 rd September, 2014, at 2.00 p.m. Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained until further orders. 2

R.P.(C)No........./2014 (Diary No.25905/2014) : Taken on board. Issue notice. List this matter on 23 rd September, 2014, along with I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in CA.Nos.5877-78/2014 and batch. (Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar 3

ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.4 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in Civil Appeal Nos.5877-5878/2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (For modification/clarification) WITH I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5879/2014 (For modification/clarification, with prayer for interim relief and Office Report) I.A.Nos.23-24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880-5881/2014 (For modification/clarification, with prayer for interim relief and office report) I.A.Nos.41-42/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014 (For modification/clarification, with prayer for interim relief and office report) I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5884/2014 (For modification and Office Report) R.P.(C)No........./2014 (Diary No.25905/2014) Date: 27/08/2014 These matters were called on for hearing oday. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. In I.A.Nos.15-16 Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. in CA 5877-78 Mr. Samsriti Pathak,Adv. Mr. Niraimati,Adv. In I.A.No.3 in Mr. K. Parasaran,Sr.Adv. CA 5879 Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv. In I.A.Nos.23-24 Mr. P.S. Patwalia,ASG in CA 5880-81 Mr. V. G. Pragasam,Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle,Adv. Mr. Praburama Subramanian,Adv. In I.A.Nos.41-42 Mr. V. Giri,Sr.Adv. in CA 5882-83 Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. 4

Ms. Malvika J.,Adv. Mr. Sureshan P.,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Amit S. Chadha,Sr.Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Ms. Srishti Govil,Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirasagar,Adv. Ms. Vaishali Dixit,Adv. Mr. S. Narayanan,Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AG Mr. Subramonium Prasad,AAG Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Shrama,Adv. Mr. Anand Sathiyaseelan,Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham,Sr.Adv. Mr. Bipin V. Chandan,Adv. Mr. T. Anamika,Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi,Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Kovilan,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.Nos.15-16/2014 in CA.Nos.5877-78/2014, I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5879/2014, I.A.Nos.23-24/2014 in C.A.Nos.5880- 5881/2014, I.A.Nos.41-42/2014 in C.A.Nos.5882-5883/2014, I.A.No.3/2014 in C.A.No.5884/2014 : Issue notice on these applications returnable on 23 rd September, 2014. List on 23 rd September, 2014, at 2.00 p.m. Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained until further orders. 5

" 1 ITEM NO.702 COURT NO.5 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.No. 15-16 IN Civil Appeal No(s). 5877-5878 OF 2014 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Appellant(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s) (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.06.2014) with I.A.Nos. 23-24 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5880-81 of 2014 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.06.2014) I.A.No. 41-42 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5882-83 of 2014 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.06.2014) I.A.No. 3 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5879 of 2014 (Application for modification/clarification of order dated 30.06.2014) Date : 08/07/2014 These appeals were mentioned today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. (Mentioned by) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. Niraimati, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.Signature Not Verified Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv.Digitally signed by Mr. Sureshan P., Adv.Jayant Kumar AroraDate: 2014.07.0917:14:21 IST For Respondent(s)Reason: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Attorney General Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. 2 UPON being mentioned by counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

List on 17.07.2014 before the Bench comprising Hon'bleMr. Justice Anil R.Dave and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dipak Misra, J. (Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant Registrar

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5877-78 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.8980-8981 of 2011) Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission ... Appellant Versus A.B. Natarajan & Ors. Etc. ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5880-81 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.26143-26144 of 2011) CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5882-83 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.26145-26146 of 2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP (c) No.26597 of 2012) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5879 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.9225 of 2011)

2 JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted. 2. As all these appeals have been filed against a common judgment dated 4 th March, 2011, delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos.1063 and 1287 of 2009, they have been heard together and decided by this common judgment. 3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as follows. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) had issued an advertisement on 27 th December, 2000, inviting applications for 95 posts for Group I Services. Subsequently, the vacancies had been decreased and it was notified that in all 91 vacancies had to be filled up. 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, several candidates had submitted their applications and ultimately they had also appeared in the preliminary examination. The candidates who had been declared qualified in the

3 preliminary examination were asked to appear in the main written examination. Subsequently, oral interviews had been conducted of the candidates who were selected in the main examination and thereafter a final select list had been prepared by the Commission. 5. Writ petitions had been filed in the Madras High Court contending that the scaling technique was not properly applied by the Commission and certain irregularities had been committed in the examination. There were amendments in the petitions and subsequently it was also alleged that there were some malpractices and a prayer was made to the effect that the Central Bureau of Investigation should be directed to look into the matter. 6. When the petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, an advocate was appointed as the Court Commissioner to look into the alleged irregularities and in pursuance thereof a report had been submitted by the learned advocate. Once again, another advocate was appointed as the Court Commissioner to look into the allegations and inspect the answer books to find out

4 whether the instructions given to the candidates had been strictly adhered to while answering the question papers. A report was also submitted by the other learned advocate. Both the reports had been considered by the learned Single Judge and ultimately the learned Single Judge had dismissed the petitions. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the petitions, appeals had been filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, which had been heard at length. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals had been allowed by a common judgment, which has been challenged in these appeals. 7. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that there were material irregularities committed by the candidates while answering the questions. Several instructions given to the candidates had been grossly violated by the candidates. Details with regard to the irregularities committed by the candidates, which could have resulted into malpractices, have been detailed by the appellate Court in the impugned judgment.

5 8. Upon perusal of the judgment it is clear that most of the candidates had not adhered to the instructions given to them, which were to be followed while answering the questions. The candidates had made several unwarranted indications or markings in their answer books, which ought not to have been made by them. Though use of coloured pens had been prohibited, several candidates had used colours other than blue, blue-black and black, which were the only permissible colours. Use of pencil was not permitted and yet pencil markings were made by several candidates. Several candidates had given different indications by putting certain religious symbols. Moreover, certain pages of answer books were deliberately kept blank though they were supposed to write on each page. All these indications given by the candidates, which were not called for, were considered very seriously by the Division Bench of the High Court and after referring to all these irregularities, the Division Bench had allowed the appeals. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, namely, the Commission and the selected candidates, had

6 mainly submitted that the Division Bench had exceeded its jurisdiction and had violated not only the principles of natural justice, but had also decided the appeals, though all the selected candidates were not before the Court. It had also been submitted that use of colours other than the colours prescribed in the instructions given to the candidates or use of pencil was not very serious. Moreover, giving an indication with regard to any religion should not have been taken seriously by the appellate Court. It had also been submitted that proper notice had not been effected upon all the selected candidates and therefore, also the appellate Court was not right in allowing the appeals. It had also been alleged that the State of Tamil Nadu, the appointing authority, had not been impleaded as a party respondent at the time when the petitions had been filed, though the State of Tamil Nadu was a necessary party. For the aforestated reasons, it had been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the impugned judgment deserved to be quashed and set aside.

7 The learned counsel had also supported their submissions with certain judgments delivered by this Court. 10. On the other hand, it had been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, mainly appearing for the candidates who had not been declared successful, that the appeals deserved dismissal for the reason that the appellate Court had duly considered all relevant facts and had come to a clear finding that serious irregularities had been committed by the candidates which might have given rise to serious malpractices and therefore, the final select list prepared by the Commission had been rightly ordered to be modified by the High Court. It had been further submitted that a clear indication was given in the order of appointment that appointments of all the selected candidates were subject to final outcome of the writ petition which had been filed in the High Court. Moreover, not only notices had been issued to the selected candidates, pendency of the litigation had been duly advertised so as to enable the selected candidates to appear before the Court, but for the reasons best known to the concerned

8 candidates, they did not appear before the High Court and ultimately the appellate Court had passed the impugned judgment. In the circumstances, they must thank themselves for their non-appearance before the Court. It had also been submitted that initially the State of Tamil Nadu had not been joined for the reason that the entire selection process had been challenged and the selection process had been conducted by the Commission and not by the State. The learned counsel had also supported their submissions with certain judgments delivered by this Court. For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the impugned judgment is just and proper and the appeals deserved dismissal. 11. We had heard the learned counsel at length and had also considered the judgments cited by them. 12. Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering the facts of the case, in our opinion, the impugned judgment is just and proper and does not deserve any interference.

9 13. It is an admitted fact that serious irregularities had been committed by the candidates in their answer books. If one looks at the instructions, which had been given to the candidates for writing the answer books, it is clear that they had been informed in unequivocal terms that they had to use only blue, blue-black or black ink and they were supposed to use only fountain pen, steel pen or ballpoint pen. In spite of the said instructions, several candidates had used sketch pens, pencils and pens or pencils with different colours. Use of different colours or pencil could have given some indication to the examiner about the identity of the candidate. These facts clearly show that either the candidates were absolutely careless or they wanted to give some indication with regard to themselves to the examiner. If a candidate writes his answer book giving some indication with regard to himself with the help of a different ink or pencil – other than the prescribed writing instrument and the colour of ink, one can definitely presume that the candidate did not act in a bona fide manner.

10 14. There was a specific direction that the candidates had to start writing the answer books from the first page and no page should be left blank. In spite of the said clear instruction, several candidates kept several pages blank and what is most astonishing is that some of the candidates, after keeping the entire page blank i.e. without answering the question had written some irrelevant words or names. As for example, in one case on the entire page ‘MANI’ was written. This is nothing but some indication to the examiner, which is definitely not permitted. 15. Many of the candidates had given some indication with regard to some religion by writing the words or signs connected with a particular religion. A candidate is not supposed to give his identity or any indication with regard to himself in the answer books. If he does so, he is violating the instructions given to him which would amount to nothing but misconduct. 16. In all competitive examinations, an effort is always made to see that the answer books are examined impartially and without any bias. An effort is always made to see that

11 identity of the candidate is not revealed to the person examining the answer books so as to see that the identity i.e. the name or roll number of the candidate is not revealed. A code number is given to each answer book. The roll number given to the candidate is normally replaced by another number so that even the examiner may not know the correct roll number of the candidate. This is done so as to remove the possibility of giving any indication by anyone to the examiner about the identity of the candidate. Upon completion of the examination work, original roll number of the candidate is put on the answer book or on the sheet prepared for the purpose of assigning marks, but in any case, the examiners are not permitted to know anything about the candidate or his identity. 17. If the candidates start giving indications with regard to themselves by writing their name or some code word or some indication with an intention to convey the same to an examiner, so that he may have some undue favour, is a thing which is not approved. If such an attempt is permitted to be made, sanctity of the examination work

12 would not be maintained. The entire object behind giving code number etc. would be frustrated if all these things are permitted or tolerated. 18. Normally, a straightforward candidate, who does not want to indulge in any malpractice, would never make any effort to reveal his identity or make any special marking in his answer book. The purpose behind doing something abnormal or something which is not permitted, can be said to be an indication to the examiner about the identity of the candidate. Such an action on the part of the candidate cannot be tolerated if one wants clean, fair and transparent process of selection. 19. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that there were serious violations of the instructions given to the candidates while answering the questions. Although all these details were placed before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge did not give importance to these irregularities and dismissed the petitions, but when the appeals were filed, in our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly understood the importance of such

13 irregularities and allowed the appeals by setting aside the selection of the candidates who had committed such irregularities while writing their answer books. We are of the view that if such a strict view is not taken by a constitutional body which has been entrusted with the work of selecting best candidates, the entire purpose behind having the Commission or any other such body for examining merit of candidates would be frustrated. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellate Court was absolutely justified in allowing the appeals and by holding that all those candidates who had committed material irregularities could not be declared selected. 20. Several allegations had been made with regard to the procedural aspect. It had been submitted that all the selected candidates had not been joined as respondents and even the State of Tamil Nadu had not been joined as a respondent initially. Initially only one petition had been filed when the result had not been declared and it was also not possible for the petitioners to join all selected candidates. Subsequently, an advertisement had been

14 given in the newspapers giving indication about the pendency of the petition so as to enable the selected candidates to appear before the Court. Moreover, the appointment letters gave an indication of the fact that a litigation challenging their appointment was pending in the High Court. In spite of the aforesaid fact being stated in the appointment order and the advertisement, if selected candidates did not bother to appear before the Court, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the selected candidates were not given an opportunity to represent their case. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the allegations with regard to non-joinder of selected candidates or even the State of Tamil Nadu. 21. The candidates who had applied for Class-I post, if selected, were to be Class-I Officers of the State of Tamil Nadu. Not following the instructions given to them while appearing in the examination, which had been conducted for their selection, would either mean that they were so careless that they did not read or bother about the instructions to be followed or they wanted to give some

15 indication to the examiner about their identity. In either case, such a candidate can not be selected. A candidate, who is so careless that he does not bother about his own interest, cannot be expected to become a good officer. Interest of the candidate is to get through the examination and for that purpose he has to follow the instructions. By not following the instructions, he does not take care of his own interest. So, if he has written the answer books carelessly without bothering about the instructions given to him, he is a careless person who must not be appointed as an officer and if he has done it deliberately, then also he should not be appointed as an officer because one who plans such illegalities even before joining his service, cannot be expected to become a fair and straightforward officer. So, in either case, such a candidate cannot be selected for appointment as an officer and that too a Class-I Officer of any State. 22. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in delivering the impugned common judgment. The law

16 propounded in the judgments referred to by the counsel for the appellants cannot be disputed, but looking at the facts of the instant case, we are of the view that the said judgments would be of no help to them. 23. In the circumstances, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. …………………….J (ANIL R. DAVE) ……………………..J (DIPAK MISRA ) NEW DELHI June 30, 2014.

17 ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.6 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8980-8981/2011 SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUS A.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondents(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 9225/2011 SLP(C) No. 26143-26144/2011 SLP(C) No. 26145-26146/2011 SLP(C) No. 26597/2012 Date : 30/06/2014 These petitions were called on for Judgment today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Muth Raj, Adv. Mrs. Malvika J., Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Aristotle Joseph, Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramani,Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran , Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anand Sathiyaseelan, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. K. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv. Mr. Vaishali Dixit, Adv. Ms. Shristi Govil, Adv.

18 Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv. Mr. P.R. Kovilan, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar ,Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi ,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika ,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy ,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika , Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronouned the Reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted. The Civil Appeals are dismissed. (Jayant Kumar Arora) Sr. P.A. (Sneh Bala Mehra) Assistant Registrar (Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

¥ 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5877-78 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.8980-8981 of 2011) Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission ... Appellant Versus A.B. Natarajan & Ors. Etc. ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5880-81 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.26143-26144 of 2011) CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5882-83 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos.26145-26146 of 2011) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5884 OF 2014, (Arising out of SLP (c) No.26597 of 2012) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5879 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.9225 of 2011)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byJayant Kumar AroraDate: 2014.07.0114:52:36 ISTReason: 2 JUDGMENTANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted.2. As all these appeals have been filed against a commonjudgment dated 4th March, 2011, delivered by the HighCourt of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos.1063 and1287 of 2009, they have been heard together and decided bythis common judgment.3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in anutshell are as follows.

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission(hereinafter referred to as `the Commission') had issued anadvertisement on 27th December, 2000, inviting applicationsfor 95 posts for Group I Services. Subsequently, thevacancies had been decreased and it was notified that in all91 vacancies had to be filled up.4. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, severalcandidates had submitted their applications and ultimatelythey had also appeared in the preliminary examination.The candidates who had been declared qualified in the 3preliminary examination were asked to appear in the mainwritten examination. Subsequently, oral interviews hadbeen conducted of the candidates who were selected in themain examination and thereafter a final select list had beenprepared by the Commission.5. Writ petitions had been filed in the Madras High Courtcontending that the scaling technique was not properlyapplied by the Commission and certain irregularities hadbeen committed in the examination. There wereamendments in the petitions and subsequently it was alsoalleged that there were some malpractices and a prayer wasmade to the effect that the Central Bureau of Investigationshould be directed to look into the matter.6. When the petitions were heard by the learned SingleJudge of the High Court, an advocate was appointed as theCourt Commissioner to look into the alleged irregularitiesand in pursuance thereof a report had been submitted bythe learned advocate. Once again, another advocate wasappointed as the Court Commissioner to look into theallegations and inspect the answer books to find out 4whether the instructions given to the candidates had been

strictly adhered to while answering the question papers. Areport was also submitted by the other learned advocate.Both the reports had been considered by the learned SingleJudge and ultimately the learned Single Judge haddismissed the petitions. Being aggrieved by dismissal ofthe petitions, appeals had been filed before the DivisionBench of the High Court, which had been heard at length.After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties,the appeals had been allowed by a common judgment,which has been challenged in these appeals.7. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that therewere material irregularities committed by the candidateswhile answering the questions. Several instructions givento the candidates had been grossly violated by thecandidates. Details with regard to the irregularitiescommitted by the candidates, which could have resultedinto malpractices, have been detailed by the appellate Courtin the impugned judgment. 58. Upon perusal of the judgment it is clear that most ofthe candidates had not adhered to the instructions given tothem, which were to be followed while answering thequestions. The candidates had made several unwarrantedindications or markings in their answer books, which oughtnot to have been made by them. Though use of colouredpens had been prohibited, several candidates had usedcolours other than blue, blue-black and black, which werethe only permissible colours. Use of pencil was notpermitted and yet pencil markings were made by severalcandidates. Several candidates had given differentindications by putting certain religious symbols. Moreover,certain pages of answer books were deliberately kept blankthough they were supposed to write on each page. All theseindications given by the candidates, which were not called

for, were considered very seriously by the Division Bench ofthe High Court and after referring to all these irregularities,the Division Bench had allowed the appeals.9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants,namely, the Commission and the selected candidates, had 6mainly submitted that the Division Bench had exceeded itsjurisdiction and had violated not only the principles ofnatural justice, but had also decided the appeals, though allthe selected candidates were not before the Court. It hadalso been submitted that use of colours other than thecolours prescribed in the instructions given to thecandidates or use of pencil was not very serious. Moreover,giving an indication with regard to any religion should nothave been taken seriously by the appellate Court. It hadalso been submitted that proper notice had not beeneffected upon all the selected candidates and therefore, alsothe appellate Court was not right in allowing the appeals. Ithad also been alleged that the State of Tamil Nadu, theappointing authority, had not been impleaded as a partyrespondent at the time when the petitions had been filed,though the State of Tamil Nadu was a necessary party. Forthe aforestated reasons, it had been submitted by thelearned counsel appearing for the appellants that theimpugned judgment deserved to be quashed and set aside. 7The learned counsel had also supported their submissionswith certain judgments delivered by this Court.10. On the other hand, it had been submitted by thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents, mainlyappearing for the candidates who had not been declaredsuccessful, that the appeals deserved dismissal for thereason that the appellate Court had duly considered allrelevant facts and had come to a clear finding that serious

irregularities had been committed by the candidates whichmight have given rise to serious malpractices and therefore,the final select list prepared by the Commission had beenrightly ordered to be modified by the High Court. It hadbeen further submitted that a clear indication was given inthe order of appointment that appointments of all theselected candidates were subject to final outcome of the writpetition which had been filed in the High Court. Moreover,not only notices had been issued to the selected candidates,pendency of the litigation had been duly advertised so as toenable the selected candidates to appear before the Court,but for the reasons best known to the concerned 8candidates, they did not appear before the High Court andultimately the appellate Court had passed the impugnedjudgment. In the circumstances, they must thankthemselves for their non-appearance before the Court. Ithad also been submitted that initially the State of TamilNadu had not been joined for the reason that the entireselection process had been challenged and the selectionprocess had been conducted by the Commission and not bythe State. The learned counsel had also supported theirsubmissions with certain judgments delivered by this Court.For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel appearingfor the respondents had submitted that the impugnedjudgment is just and proper and the appeals deserveddismissal.11. We had heard the learned counsel at length and hadalso considered the judgments cited by them.12. Upon hearing the learned counsel and considering thefacts of the case, in our opinion, the impugned judgment isjust and proper and does not deserve any interference. 9

13. It is an admitted fact that serious irregularities hadbeen committed by the candidates in their answer books. Ifone looks at the instructions, which had been given to thecandidates for writing the answer books, it is clear that theyhad been informed in unequivocal terms that they had touse only blue, blue-black or black ink and they weresupposed to use only fountain pen, steel pen or ballpointpen. In spite of the said instructions, several candidateshad used sketch pens, pencils and pens or pencils withdifferent colours. Use of different colours or pencil couldhave given some indication to the examiner about theidentity of the candidate. These facts clearly show thateither the candidates were absolutely careless or theywanted to give some indication with regard to themselves tothe examiner. If a candidate writes his answer book givingsome indication with regard to himself with the help of adifferent ink or pencil - other than the prescribed writinginstrument and the colour of ink, one can definitelypresume that the candidate did not act in a bona fidemanner. 1014. There was a specific direction that the candidates hadto start writing the answer books from the first page and nopage should be left blank. In spite of the said clearinstruction, several candidates kept several pages blank andwhat is most astonishing is that some of the candidates,after keeping the entire page blank i.e. without answeringthe question had written some irrelevant words or names.As for example, in one case on the entire page `MANI' waswritten. This is nothing but some indication to theexaminer, which is definitely not permitted.15. Many of the candidates had given some indication withregard to some religion by writing the words or signsconnected with a particular religion. A candidate is not

supposed to give his identity or any indication with regardto himself in the answer books. If he does so, he isviolating the instructions given to him which would amountto nothing but misconduct.16. In all competitive examinations, an effort is alwaysmade to see that the answer books are examined impartiallyand without any bias. An effort is always made to see that 11identity of the candidate is not revealed to the personexamining the answer books so as to see that the identityi.e. the name or roll number of the candidate is notrevealed. A code number is given to each answer book.The roll number given to the candidate is normally replacedby another number so that even the examiner may notknow the correct roll number of the candidate. This is doneso as to remove the possibility of giving any indication byanyone to the examiner about the identity of the candidate.Upon completion of the examination work, original rollnumber of the candidate is put on the answer book or onthe sheet prepared for the purpose of assigning marks, butin any case, the examiners are not permitted to knowanything about the candidate or his identity.17. If the candidates start giving indications with regard tothemselves by writing their name or some code word orsome indication with an intention to convey the same to anexaminer, so that he may have some undue favour, is athing which is not approved. If such an attempt ispermitted to be made, sanctity of the examination work 12would not be maintained. The entire object behind givingcode number etc. would be frustrated if all these things arepermitted or tolerated.18. Normally, a straightforward candidate, who does notwant to indulge in any malpractice, would never make any

effort to reveal his identity or make any special marking inhis answer book. The purpose behind doing somethingabnormal or something which is not permitted, can be saidto be an indication to the examiner about the identity of thecandidate. Such an action on the part of the candidatecannot be tolerated if one wants clean, fair and transparentprocess of selection.19. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that therewere serious violations of the instructions given to thecandidates while answering the questions. Although allthese details were placed before the learned Single Judge,the learned Single Judge did not give importance to theseirregularities and dismissed the petitions, but when theappeals were filed, in our opinion, the Division Bench of theHigh Court rightly understood the importance of such 13irregularities and allowed the appeals by setting aside theselection of the candidates who had committed suchirregularities while writing their answer books. We are ofthe view that if such a strict view is not taken by aconstitutional body which has been entrusted with the workof selecting best candidates, the entire purpose behindhaving the Commission or any other such body forexamining merit of candidates would be frustrated. We are,therefore, of the view that the appellate Court wasabsolutely justified in allowing the appeals and by holdingthat all those candidates who had committed materialirregularities could not be declared selected.20. Several allegations had been made with regard to theprocedural aspect. It had been submitted that all theselected candidates had not been joined as respondents andeven the State of Tamil Nadu had not been joined as arespondent initially. Initially only one petition had beenfiled when the result had not been declared and it was also

not possible for the petitioners to join all selectedcandidates. Subsequently, an advertisement had been 14given in the newspapers giving indication about thependency of the petition so as to enable the selectedcandidates to appear before the Court. Moreover, theappointment letters gave an indication of the fact that alitigation challenging their appointment was pending in theHigh Court. In spite of the aforesaid fact being stated in theappointment order and the advertisement, if selectedcandidates did not bother to appear before the Court, by nostretch of imagination, it can be said that the selectedcandidates were not given an opportunity to represent theircase. We, therefore, do not find any substance in theallegations with regard to non-joinder of selected candidatesor even the State of Tamil Nadu.21. The candidates who had applied for Class-I post, ifselected, were to be Class-I Officers of the State of TamilNadu. Not following the instructions given to them whileappearing in the examination, which had been conductedfor their selection, would either mean that they were socareless that they did not read or bother about theinstructions to be followed or they wanted to give some 15indication to the examiner about their identity. In eithercase, such a candidate can not be selected. A candidate,who is so careless that he does not bother about his owninterest, cannot be expected to become a good officer.Interest of the candidate is to get through the examinationand for that purpose he has to follow the instructions. Bynot following the instructions, he does not take care of hisown interest. So, if he has written the answer bookscarelessly without bothering about the instructions given to

him, he is a careless person who must not be appointed asan officer and if he has done it deliberately, then also heshould not be appointed as an officer because one whoplans such illegalities even before joining his service, cannotbe expected to become a fair and straightforward officer.So, in either case, such a candidate cannot be selected forappointment as an officer and that too a Class-I Officer ofany State.22. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of theview that the Division Bench of the High Court was justifiedin delivering the impugned common judgment. The law 16propounded in the judgments referred to by the counsel forthe appellants cannot be disputed, but looking at the factsof the instant case, we are of the view that the saidjudgments would be of no help to them.23. In the circumstances, the appeals are dismissed withno order as to costs. .........................J (ANIL R. DAVE) ..........................J (DIPAK MISRA )NEW DELHIJune 30, 2014. 17ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.6 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).8980-8981/2011SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondents(s)WITHSLP(C) No. 9225/2011SLP(C) No. 26143-26144/2011SLP(C) No. 26145-26146/2011

SLP(C) No. 26597/2012Date : 30/06/2014 These petitions were called on forJudgment today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jayant Muth Raj, Adv. Mrs. Malvika J., Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Aristotle Joseph, Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramani,Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran , Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anand Sathiyaseelan, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. K. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv. Mr. Vaishali Dixit, Adv. Ms. Shristi Govil, Adv. 18 Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv. Mr. P.R. Kovilan, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar ,Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi ,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika ,Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy ,Adv. Ms. T. Anamika , Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronouned theReportable Judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordshipand Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted. The Civil Appeals are dismissed. (Jayant Kumar Arora) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Sr. P.A. Assistant Registrar (Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009, WANo.1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions, permission to place addl. documents onrecord, PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and prayer for interimrelief and office report)(For Final Disposal)WITHSLP(C) NO. 26143-26144 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(For Final Disposal)SLP(C) NO. 26145-26146 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(For Final Disposal)SLP(C) NO. 26597 of 2012(For Final Disposal)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(For Final Disposal)Date: 22/10/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. Niraimati, Adv. Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Ms. Malavika J., Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv. Ms. T. Anamika, Adv. Mr. B. V. Chandan, Adv. Mr. N. Subramanyan, Adv. Mr. A. Chandramohan, Adv.For State of T.N. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Adv. Mr. B.Balaji, Adv. Mr. R. Rakesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Meha, Adv.

for R- 3 & 34 Mr. C.K. Sasi, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length. Arguments concluded. Judgment reserved. |(Jayant Kumar Arora) | |(Indu Bala Kapur) ||Sr. P.A. | |Court Master |List of books :-1) (2006) 6 SCC 395

bITEM NO.19 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009,WANo.1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions permission to place addl. documents onrecord, PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and prayer for interimrelief and office report)(For Final Disposal)WITH SLP(C) NO. 26143-26144 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(For Final Disposal)SLP(C) NO. 26145-26146 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(For Final Disposal)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(For Final Disposal)SLP(C) NO. 26597 of 2012(With prayer for interim relief and office report)(For Final Disposal)Date: 24/09/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. B.Balaji, Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi, Adv. Ms.T.Anamika, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy, Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv. Ms. T.Anamika, Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 1st October, 2013. |(Jayant Kumar Arora) | |(Renuka Sadana) ||Sr. P.A. | |Court Master |

jITEM NO.MM-1 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9225/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009 of TheHIGH COURT OF MADRAS)T.VANITHA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report)withSLP (C) 8980-8981 of 2011SLP (C) 26143-26144 of 2011SLP (C) 26145-26146 of 2011SLP (C) 26597 of 2012Date: 09/09/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s)SLP (C)26145-46/11 Mr. Jayant Muth Raj, Adv. Ms. Malavika J., Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv.SLP (C) 8980-81/11 Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv.For Respondent(s)SLP (C) 8980-81/11 Ms. T. Anamika, Adv. Mr. B. V. Chander, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 17th September, 2013. |(Jayant Kumar Arora) | |(Sneh Bala Mehra) ||Sr. P.A. | |Court Master |

\212ITEM NO.12-MM COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009,WANo.1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for directions,directions,permission to place addl.documents on record,PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and prayer forinterim relief and office report )(For final disposal)WITH SLP(C) NO. 26143-26144 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 26145-26146 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 26597 of 2012(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 22/08/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Balaji,Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi ,Adv. Ms. T.Anamika ,Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan ,Adv. -2- Mr. B. Ramana Murthy ,Adv. Mrs. Geetha Kovilan ,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List on 11th September, 2013. [ Neeta ] [ Sneh Bala Mehra ] Sr. P.A. Court Master

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. Nos. 11-12 inPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009,WANo.1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(For Directions and office report)Date: 29/07/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan Mr. V. Balachandran Mr. V.G. Pragasam Mr. Sureshan P.For Respondent(s) Mr. K. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. Mariarputham,Sr. Adv. Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi ,Adv. Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, Adv. Mr. Bipin V. Chandan, Adv. Mr. A. C. Mohan, Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. - 2 - Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Ms.T.Anamika ,Adv Mr. Balaji Srinivasan ,Adv Mr. B. Ramana Murthy ,Adv Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List I.As in SLP (C) Nos. 8980-8981/2011 alongwith SLP (C) Nos. 8980-8981/2011, 26143-26144/2011, 26145-26146/2011, 9225/2011 and 26597/2012 for final disposal on 22nd August, 2013. |(Rajni Mukhi) | |(Sneh Bala Mehra) ||SR. P.A. | |Court Master |

8ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A. No.2 In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No(s).26597/2012(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009 of TheHIGH COURT OF MADRAS)S.S.MAHESWARAN Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN AND ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for deletion of proforma respondents)Date: 17/07/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Ms. Vaishali Dixit, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Application for deleting Respondent Nos.47 and 81 from the array of parties is allowed at the risk of the petitioner. (GEETA AHUJA) (INDU POKHRIYAL) SR. P.A. COURT MASTER

äITEM NO.11 COURT NO.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSI.A.Nos. 5-6 & 7-8 & 9-10 INPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgment and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009,WANo.1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for deletion of the name of respondent,dispensing with theservice of Res.Nos.47 & 81)Date: 03/12/2012 These Applications were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. N. Yogeshkannad, Adv. Mr. Santha Kumaran,Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.R.Kovilan Poonakuntran,Adv. For Ms. Geetha Kovilan,Adv. Ms. T.Anamika ,Adv Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan ,Adv Mr. B. Ramana Murthy ,Adv Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Adv. Mr. Krishna,Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.Nos. 5-6 OF 2012 These applications are for deleting the name of respondent nos. 47 & 81 from the array of parties. The applications are allowed. The name of respondent nos. 47 & 81 be deleted from the array of parties at the risk of the petitioner. I.A.Nos. 7-8 OF 2012 - These applications are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for deleting the names of respondent Nos. 4, 5, 13, 15, 19, 27, 35, 41, 45,

50 and 55. I.A.Nos. 9-10 OF 2012 - These applications are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move an application for deleting the names of respondent Nos. 3, 12, 32, 34, 40, and 57.| (KUSUM SYAL) | |(INDU SATIJA) ||SR.P.A | |COURT MASTER || | | |

ÞITEM NO.18 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2012 CC 13110/2012(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009 of TheHIGH COURT OF MADRAS)S.S.MAHESWARAN Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN AND ORS. Respondent(s)With IA 1 (c/delay in filing SLP and office report )Date: 21/08/2012 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Srinivasan,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice. Dasti, in addition to the ordinary process. Tag with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8980-8981 of 2011 - Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vs. A.B. Natarajan & others etc.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ITEM NO.69 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents onrecord,PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and prayer for interimrelief )WITHSLP(C) NO. 26143-26144 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 26145-26146 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 16/03/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv. Mr A Lakshminarayanan, Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, ADv. Mr S.J.Aristotle, ADv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam,ADv. Mr Jayanth Muth Raj, ADv. Mr. Sureshan P., ADv. Mr M Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr Rajeev M Roy, ADv.For Respondent(s) Mr P.R.Kovilan Poonakuntran, ADv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mr. C.K. Sasi ,Adv Ms.T.Anamika ,Adv Mr Prabhat Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan ,Adv Mr. B. Ramana Murthy ,Adv -2-Item No.69 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue fresh notice with dasti service upon respondentsin SLP(C) No. 8980-81/2011 who are residing in the State of

Tamil Nadu. Issue fresh notice by speed post upon respondents inSLP(C) No. 8980-81/2011 who are residing outside State ofTamil Nadu. Registry has to rectify the database so as to includethe name of the ld. Advocate who has filed vakalatnamarecently. Issue fresh notice with dasti service on unservedrespondent no.72 in SLP(C) No. 26143/2011. Process fee and spare copies are to be filed before26.3.2012 else list before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers fornon-prosecution. If paid, issue notice as ordered above. All served respondents may file counter affidavitbefore the next date. List again on 18.4.2012. (S.G.SHAH) REGISTRARhj

ITEM NO. 2 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WANo.1063/2009,WA No.1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents onrecord,permission to place lengthy list of dates and with prayerfor interim relief) WITHSLP(C) NO. 26143-26144 of 2011(With prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 26145-26146 of 2011(With appln. for permission to place addl. documents on record andwith prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With appln. for deletion of the name of respondent and withprayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 09/02/2012 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S Gurukrishna Kumar, AAGIn SLPs8990-8981/11 Mr. B Balaji, Adv. Mr. A Prasanna Venkat, Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv.(NP)In SLP 9225/2011 Mr. K Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv.In SLPs.26143-44/11 Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Praburamasubramanian, Adv. ..2/- : 2 :In SLPs.26145-46/11 Mr. L Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mr. A Mariarputham,Sr.Adv.(In SLPs8990-81/11) Mr. N Subramanian, Adv. Ms.T.Anamika,Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan ,Adv Mr. N Subramanian, Adv. Mr. B. Ramana Murthy,Adv

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In SLP No. 9225/2011 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed I.A. No. 2 of 2011, inter alia requesting this Court to delete pro forma respondent Nos. 3 to 38. The request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not opposed by the other side. Therefore, prayer made in the application is granted, at the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Ordered accordingly. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other SLPs. will take steps for effecting service of notice on unserved respondents within four weeks from today. Call the special leave petitions after four weeks. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Sharda Kapoor ] Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.97 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9225/2011T.VANITHA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 09/11/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Balachandran,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Ms.T.Anamika ,Adv UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The application for deletion I.A.No.2 may be listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for orders. (Sunil Thomas) RegistrarSB

\222ITEM NO.25 Court No.11 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009,WA No.1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and prayerfor interim relief)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6040-6041 of 2011(For permission to file SLP and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6061-6062 of 2011(For permission to file SLP and permission to place addl. documentson record and with prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With appln(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgmentand with prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 05/09/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Parasaran,Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. L. Nageshwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Ms. Malavika G., Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Praburamasubaramaniam, Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyam, Adv. Mr. A. Chandramohan, Adv. Ms. T. Anamika, Adv. Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, AAG Mr. B. Balaji, Adv. Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv. for Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Permission to file SLP is granted. Applications for deletions are allowed. Issue notice.

Learned counsel appearing for some of therespondents accepts notice. Counter affidavit has been filed by some of therespondents. Three weeks' further time is granted to theother respondents to file counter affidavit as a lastopportunity. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, shall be filedwithin three weeks thereafter. The matters shall be listed on a non-miscellaneousday in the third week of November, 2011. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENU DIWAN) Court Master Court Master

,ITEM NO.4 Court No.13 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No. 1063/2009 &WA No. 1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES andwith prayer for interim relief)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6040-6041 of 2011(for permission to file SLP and with prayer for interim relief)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6061-6062 of 2011(for permission to file SLP and permission to place addl. documents onrecord and with prayer for interim relief and office report)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With appln(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgmentand with prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 20/07/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.P. Rao, Adv. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, AAG Mr. Subramanium Prasad, Adv. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Ms. Malavika G., Adv. Mr. Sureshan P, Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. -2-For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv. Ms. Geetha Muthu Perumal, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv. Mr. A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. A. Chandramohan, Adv. Ms. T. Anamika, Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan ,Adv Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, AAG Mr. B. Balaji, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks for anadjournment on ground of his personal difficulty. Learnedcounsel for the respondents states that he has to file a counteraffidavit. Let the same be filed within two weeks. Rejoinderaffidavit thereto, if any, could be filed within a weekthereafter. Re-notify after three weeks. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENU DIWAN) Court Master Court Master

üITEM NO.1 Court No.14 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No. 1063/2009 &WA No. 1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and prayerfor interim relief)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6040-6041 of 2011(With permission to file SLP and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6061-6062 of 2011(With permission to file SLP and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With appln(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgmentand with prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 04/05/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Praburamasubramanian, Adv. Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. N.R. Chandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv. Ms. Niraimathi, Adv. Mr. P. Prasanth, Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mr. Sureshan P. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. BalachandranFor Respondent(s) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar ,Adv -2- UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The State of Tamilnadu has entered appearance.Learned senior counsel appearing for the State states

that they would like to file a counter affidavit. Letthe same be filed within three weeks so that rejoinderaffidavit also could be filed within four weeksthereafter. All the pleadings could be completed within sixweeks from today. Re-notify for arguments on a non-miscellaneous dayin the third week of July, 2011. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENU DIWAN) Court Master Court Master

DITEM NO.26 Court No.14 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-8981/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No. 1063/2009 &WA No. 1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)SECRETARY TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMM Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and prayerfor interim relief)WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6040-6041 of 2011(With permission to file SLP and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6061-6062 of 2011(With permission to file SLP and with prayer for interim relief andoffice report)SLP(C) NO. 9225 of 2011(With appln(s) for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgmentand with prayer for interim relief and office report)Date: 11/04/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv. Ms. Niramathi, Adv. Mr. P. Prasanth, Adv. Mr. V. Vasudevan, Adv. Mr. L. Nagwshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. Praburama Subramanian, Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv. -2-For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv. Mr. M.V.K. Moorthy, Adv. Mr. A. chandramohan, Adv. Ms.T.Anamika,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In these matters, what is challenged is the

judgment and order passed by the Madras High Court. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is one of the petitioners in these petitions whereas other petitions have been filed by the selected candidates whose selection and appointments have been set aside by the High Court. The contesting respondents who are the original writ petitioners are also represented through their counsel. Therefore, we would hear the writ petitions in presence of the counsels who are available for final disposal or admission as the case may be on 4th May, 2011. In the meantime, it shall be open to the parties to exchange affidavits, if so advised. At the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary is impleaded as a party respondents inall the matters. Steps shall be taken for service ofnotice on the said newly impleaded respondent by servingDasti. Additionally, a copy of the notice shall be -3-served on the standing counsel for State of Tamil Nadu. Liberty to the parties to mention these mattersbefore this Court, if there may be any cause. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENU DIWAN) Court Master Court Master

L 1ITEM NO.14A to 14D(MM) COURT NO.14 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8980-81/2011(From the judgement and order dated 04/03/2011 in WA No.1063/2009 & WA No. 1287/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)THE SECRETARY, TNPSC. Petitioner(s) VERSUSA.B.NATARAJAN & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)WITH SLP(C)..CC No. 6040-41/2011WITH SLP(C)..CC No. 6061-62/2011WITH SLP(C)No. 9225/2011Date: 05/04/2011 These Petitions were Mentioned for hearingtoday.CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Petitioner(s) Mr. P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Harish Kumar,Adv. Mr. P. Prasantha, Adv. Mr. V. Sasudevan, Adv. Mrs. Niraimathi, Adv. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. S.J. Aristotle, Adv. Mr. P.R. Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mr. Sureshan P., Adv. Mr. K. Parasaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balachandran, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. N. Subramaniyam, Adv. Mr. A. Chandramohan, Adv. Ms. T.Anamika,Adv. 2 UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RRe-notify on 11.4.2011 for admission.(NAVEEN KUMAR) (RENU DIWAN) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

T.VANITHA . v. A.B.NATARAJAN .

Full Judgment Text

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status