2026:MHC:1333WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page1 of 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026PRONOUNCED ON : 02.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

WP No. 7426 of 2025

and

WMP No. 8305 of 2025

D.Kumar

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.Union of India

Rep. by its Secretary,

Ministry of Home Affairs,

North Block, Central Secretariat,

New Delhi-110 001.

2.Union Public Service Commission

Rep. by its Joint Secretary,

Dholpur House Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi-110 069.

3.Directorate of Forensic Science Services,

Rep. by its Director Cum Chief Forensic Scientist,

Block No.9, 8th Floor, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.

..Respondent(s)

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records

relating to order dated 14.11.2022 in M.A.No.149 of 2021 in OA No.123 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page2 of 24

2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and to quash the same and

to direct respondents 1 to 3 to notionally appoint the petitioner as Senior

Scientific officer Grade II (Explosives) w.e.f 16.12.2014 on par with Mr.Sanjeet

Kumar along with notional fixation of pay and re-fixation of seniority and

notional promotion to the post of Assistant Director / Scientist - C w.e.f

02.07.2019.

For Petitioner(s):Mr.N.G.R.Prasad

For Ms.Y.Kavitha

For M/s. P.V.S. Giridhar Associates Law

Chambers

For Respondent (s):Mr.AR L.Sundaresan, ASGI

Assisted by Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi (CGSC)

For R1 and R3.

Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC, for R2.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

The petitioner in M.A.No.149 of 2021 in O.A.No.123 of 2017, aggrieved

by the order dated 14.11.2022, dismissing the said Miscellaneous Application,

has filed the present Writ Petition.

2.The petitioner had filed O.A.No.123 of 2017 seeking records relating to

Order No.F.1/45(12)/2013 – R.II dated 02.01.2017 passed by the 2

nd

respondent,

Union Public Service Commission and to quash the same and to direct the

respondents to issue appointment order to him to the post of Senior Scientific https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page3 of 24

Officer Gr.II (Explosives) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) w.e.f.

16.12.2014 and also to pay monetary and service benefits.

3.The petitioner, D.Kumar had earlier worked in Cordite Factory at

Aruvankadu and when later working as Chemical and Metallurgical

Superintendent in Southern Railway, was posted in the Laboratory of Diesel

Loco Shed at Trichy. He applied for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Gr-II

(Explosives) in CFSL pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.05.2013 published

in the Employment News by the 2

nd

respondent / Union Public Service

Commission and also uploaded in their website. The petitioner attended the

interview. He later sought the details of the marks obtained. A reply was

furnished stating that the petitioner had been placed in the third rank, as he had

obtained 65 marks. The petitioner belonged to Other Backward Community.

There were two other candidates, who also belonged to the same community,

who had obtained higher marks / 70 and 66 while the petitioner had obtained 65

marks in the interview. The candidate who obtained the second rank / 66 marks,

Narendra Kumar Biswal was junior to the petitioner in Cordite Factory at

Aruvankadu.

4.The petitioner sent a representation dated 23.12.2013 stating that

Narendra Kumar Biswal had produced a false Experience Certificate and that

his application should not have been considered and that he should not have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page4 of 24

been recommended for the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Gr-II (Explosives)

in CFSL.

5.The respondents, however, did not take any action. This forced the

petitioner to file O.A.No.175 of 2014 before the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Chennai, seeking a direction to consider him for appointment and to

remove Narendra Kumar Biswal.

6.The petitioner received a reply from the respondents that the 1

st

respondent, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, had issued

a show cause notice dated 23.10.2015 to Narendra Kumar Biswal seeking

explanation as to why his candidature should not be cancelled. A reply was

issued by him on 15.09.2016 stating that he had been selected as SSO G-II

(Explosives) in SQAE (ME) and that he was therefore not willing to join as

Senior Scientific Officer, Gr-II (Explosives) in Central Forensic Science

Laboratory. When O.A.No.175 of 2014 was taken up for hearing, the above fact

was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. By order dated 07.11.2016, the

Tribunal disposed the Original Application granting liberty to the petitioner to

approach the Union Public Service Commissioner by giving a representation

and further directed that such representation should be examined and disposed

of. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page5 of 24

7.The petitioner then submitted a representation dated 26.11.2016 to the

respondents seeking appointment as Senior Scientific Officer Gr-II

(Explosives). The 2

nd

respondent / Union Public Service Commission by an

order dated 02.01.2017 refused to consider the case of the petitioner on the

ground that the reserve list would be valid only for 18 months from the date of

finalization of the Interview Board Report and could be extended to 24 months

in exceptional circumstances and since that time period has passed, the

petitioner cannot be recommended to the said post.

8.The petitioner then filed O.A.No.123 of 2017 seeking to quash the said

order of the 2

nd

respondent / Union Public Service Commission and seeking

appointment to the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Gr-II (Explosives) in

CFSL. By order dated 24.04.2017, the Tribunal held that there was no dispute

that the 1

st

respondent / Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India,

had found that the information regarding experience as claimed by Narendra

Kumar Biswal was not corroborated by facts and also by the information

received from his erstwhile employer. It was further observed that though the

show cause notice was issued, and though it is claimed that a reply was

submitted, a copy of the reply was not available in the records. It was also

observed that a finding had not been rendered that he was eligible to be

appointed to the said post. The Tribunal also wondered as to why the

respondents took over two years to issue the show cause notice. It was observed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page6 of 24

that if the reserve list could be kept alive only for a period of 18 months under

normal circumstances and for a period of 24 months under exceptional

circumstances, the 2

nd

respondent should have initiated steps within that period,

and it was therefore held that there was no justification for the inaction for over

two years. It was further observed that the petitioner was not responsible for the

delay. It was further observed that if the respondents had taken timely action

and had disqualified Narendra Kumar Biswal then the petitioner would have

been recommended for appointment even during the period when the select list

was uploaded. In view of the said reasonings, the Tribunal finally held as

follows:

“13.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no

hesitation to hold that the applicant is entitled to be appointed to

the post of Senior Scientific Officer Gr.II (Explosive). The

respondents are accordingly, directed to issue an appointment

order in favour of the applicant forthwith.

14.OA is allowed. No costs.”

9.The 2

nd

respondent / UPSE then recommended the name of the

petitioner for appointment to the said post. The petitioner was also issued with

order of appointment dated 30.08.2017 and directed to join CFSL, Bhopal. He

was relieved by the Railways on 26.12.2017 and joined duty on 28.12.2017. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page7 of 24

10.The petitioner, however, submitted a further representation on

16.02.2018 that his appointment should have been with effect on and from

16.12.2014 and claimed fixation of seniority and other service benefits. The

petitioner then issued a notice on 14.04.2018 seeking compliance of the

directions of the Tribunal. A reply was received from the 3

rd

respondent that the

Tribunal had not given any specific direction to grant benefits to the petitioner

from 16.12.2014.

11.In the meanwhile, the respondents issued in-situ promotion to the

persons who were holding the post of Scientist ‘B’ to the Grade of Assistant

Director & Scientist ‘C’ in CFSL in Level 11 of pay matrix. The petitioner,

however, not considered for such promotion. The candidate who had been

selected, Sanjeet Kumar to the post of SSO Grade – II/Sci.B (Exp.) had been

granted the benefit of promotion. The petitioner sent further representations.

The respondents reiterated that there was no direction by the Tribunal to grant

benefits retrospectively to the petitioner from 16.12.2014.

12.The petitioner therefore filed M.A.No.149 of 2021 in O.A.No.123 of

2017 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to appoint him w.e.f. 16.12.2014

as Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II (Explosives) on par with Sanjeet Kumar

and seeking fixation of notional pay and to consider him for further promotion https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page8 of 24

on that basis. By order dated 14.11.2022, the Tribunal dismissed the

Miscellaneous Application holding that the earlier order of the Tribunal dated

24.04.2017 had been complied with by the respondents and that the petitioner

could not be granted service benefits retrospectively.

13.Challenging that particular order, the petitioner had filed the present

Writ Petition.

14.A counter affidavit had been filed by the 3

rd

respondent, wherein, after

narrating the facts, it had been stated that in compliance with the directions

issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.123 of 2017 on 24.04.2017, the Union Public

Service Commission by letter dated 02.06.2017 had recommended the name of

the petitioner for appointment to the post of SSO Grade-II (Explosives) in CFSL

on Direct Recruitment process. It had been stated that approval of the

Appointing Authority was thereafter obtained on 17.08.2017 and orders were

issued to the petitioner, who joined at CFSL Bhopal on 28.12.2017. It was

contended that a candidate cannot receive the benefits of an appointment prior

to the recommendations of Union Public Service Commission as the

appointment and selection process was the official outcome of the orders of

UPSC. It was also pointed out that the Tribunal had observed, while dismissing

M.A.No.149 of 2021, that the petitioner has no right of service benefit prior to

the joining the post. He had been appointed only from the reserve list and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page9 of 24

therefore, he cannot seek retrospective benefits. It was therefore contended that

the Tribunal had appreciated all facts and had correctly dismissed the

Miscellaneous Application and that the said order does not require interference

by this Court.

15.Heard Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and Mr.AR L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for

the 1

st

and 3

rd

respondent and Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, learned Senior Panel

Counsel for the 2

nd

respondent.

16.Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took the

Court through the facts of the case. The learned counsel emphasized that one of

the basic requisites to apply to the post of SSO Gr-II (Explosives) was three

years of experience in Analytical Method and Research in the field of

Explosives. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner was earlier working in

Cordite Factory at Aruvankadu, where Narendra Kumar Biswal was also

working and the petitioner had direct knowledge of the fact that Narendra

Kumar Biswal did not have the requisite experience to even apply to the post of

SSO Gr-II (Explosives). However, his application was processed and he also

attended the interview. The learned counsel pointed out the conditions provided

in the application form, wherein it had been very clearly stated that when a

candidate submitted statements which are incorrect or false he/she would be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page10 of 24

liable to be disqualified by the Commission from selection. The learned counsel

therefore argued that Narendra Kumar Biswal having furnished false

information should have been disqualified in the initial stage itself and had he

been so disqualified, then the petitioner would have been automatically

recommended for the selection to the said post on the very same day as the

other candidate Sanjeet Kumar was selected and they would have joined on

same day / 16.12.2014.

17.The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner had

immediately sent a representation questioning the eligibility of Narendra Kumar

Biswal. The 2

nd

respondent however took nearly two years to respond. The

finally issued a show cause notice clearly pointing out that Narendra Kumar

Biswal did not have the requisite experience and calling for explanation. The

learned counsel stated that since a show cause notice has been issued, there was

an obligation on the part of the 2

nd

respondent to render a finding either based

on the reply given or if a reply was not given on the basis of the available

records.

18.The learned counsel expressed deep anguish over the fact that the 2

nd

respondent / UPSC did neither.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page11 of 24

19.The 2

nd

respondent / UPSC however stated that the petitioner could not

be considered for recommendation since the reserve list had expired. The

learned counsel then pointed out the order of the Tribunal in the earlier round of

litigation wherein, the Tribunal had clearly observed that the delay by the UPSC

was not on the ground of any fault of the petitioner. He further pointed out that

the relief sought before the Tribunal was to consider the petitioner for

appointment w.e.f 16.12.2014. The said Original Application had been allowed

and a direction had been issued to the UPSC to recommend him for the post.

The learned counsel argued that the sequence of events make it evident that the

Tribunal had directed his appointment w.e.f. 16.12.2014 and not from any

arbitrary later date.

20.The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner had been denied

the opportunity of being promoted on par with Sanjeet Kumar. He had been

initially denied appointment only owing to the fact that Narendra Kumar Biswal

applied for the post though he was not eligible and the respondents had not

taken any steps to disqualify him within a reasonable period of time and

consider the petitioner for appointment.

21.The learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page12 of 24

22. (2020) 5 SCC 230, C.Jayachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Others,

wherein the Hon’ble Surpeme Court had held that the appellant therein had been

wrongfully excluded from the process of appointment only on account of illegal

and arbitrary grant of moderation of marks and the select list was directed to be

revised. It was held that the appellant would be deemed to be appointed along

with other candidates in the same select list and on the same date when other

candidates were appointed pursuant to the same advertisement.

23.The learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio stated above and

urged that this Court should consider the appointment of the petitioner from the

date when the co-candidate Sanjeet Kumar was appointed pursuant to the same

advertisement.

24.(1996) 8 SCC 637, Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and Others Vs. Union of

India and Others, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that when the

appointment of a direct recruit was delayed for no fault on his part but due to

latches on the part of the Department, then he would be eligible to be appointed

in accordance with the rules and his seniority should be determined as per the

procedure prescribed in the rules. Paragraph No.3 of the judgement is as

follows:

“3.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

since the inter se seniority as Assistant Engineers was left open in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page13 of 24

the order, the directions given by the Tribunal to consider the case

as Executive Engineer and determine his seniority on the basis of

promotion, is not valid in law. We find no force in the contention.

Once he is found to be eligible according to the rules, then his

seniority is required to be determined as per the procedure

prescribed in the rules in vogue. It is further contended that the fifth

respondent was not qualified since he had not completed 8 years of

required service. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that two

years’ period is relaxable in the case of the reserved candidates.

The inter se seniority as Assistant Executive Engineer is required to

be determined; he joined service in 1981 and therefore, he did not

have the requisite service. We find no force in the contention. Since

he was selected by direct recruitment, he is entitled to be appointed

according to rule. His appointment was delayed for no fault of his

and he came to be appointed in 1981, he is, therefore, entitled to the

ranking given in the select list and appointment made accordingly.

Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the

order.”

25.The learned counsel pointed out the ratio laid and drew a parallel with

the instant case, wherein the petitioner had been appointed by an appointment

order issued much later though he was eligible even earlier and the candidate

whose name was recommended was ineligible to even apply to the post.

26.The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1970) 1 SCC 670, Vasudev Dhanjibhai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page14 of 24

Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Others, only for the limited purpose

that a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree and cannot entertain

any petition that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. It was held that a

decree, even if it were erroneous is binding on the parties until it is set aside

through appropriate proceedings in appeal or in revision.

27.The learned counsel stated that since the Tribunal had allowed

O.A.No.123 of 2017, the Tribunal should have considered the relief sought in

the Miscellaneous Application which had been filed only to put into effect the

earlier order of the Tribunal. The relief sought in O.A.No.123 of 2017 was to

consider the appointment of the petitioner as SSO Gr-II (Explosives) w.e.f.

16.12.2014. The learned counsel argued that no further interpretation could be

given by the respondents on this issue.

28.Placing his arguments on the above premises, the learned counsel

urged that the Writ Petition should be allowed.

29.Mr.AR L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General, however

disputed the said contentions. The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed

out that, even though O.A.No.123 of 2017 had been allowed, there was only a

direction to the Union Public Service Commission to issue an order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page15 of 24

recommending the petitioner to the post of SSO Gr-II (Explosives) which

direction had been complied with. There was no direction that the petitioner

should be deemed to have been appointed on 16.12.2014 or on any other date.

The learned Additional Solicitor General therefore argued that the petitioner,

having joined duty on 28.12.2017, was eligible for service and monetary

benefits only on and from that date and cannot claim any privilege earlier to that

date. He further pointed out that the respondents have to carry out the directions

of the Tribunal as directed and cannot interpret the order in the manner in which

the petitioner or any third party requires it to be read. He also pointed out that

though show cause notice had been issued to Narendra Kumar Biswal there was

no adjudication by the 1

st

respondent and therefore, it cannot be presumed that

the averments raised in the show cause notice stood proved or established. The

learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the petitioner was not

eligible for consideration for any monetary or service benefits from any date

earlier to the date on which he had joined the said post. He therefore urged that

the Writ Petition should be dismissed and the order of the Tribunal should be

sustained.

30.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the

material records. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page16 of 24

31.The petitioner, D.Kumar, originally joined Cordite Factory at

Aruvankadu as Chargeman Gr-II/T(CHEM) on 06.11.2002. He was then

promoted on 17.04.2006 as Chargeman Gr-I/T(CHEM). He was then selected to

the post of Chemical and Metallurgical Assistant through Railway Recruitment

Board Competitive Examination and was later promoted as Chemical and

Metallurgical Superintendent w.e.f 07.11.2012. The petitioner had, pursuant to a

publication in the Employment News on 11.05.2013, applied for the Post of

Senior Scientific Officer Gr-II (Explosives) in CFSL. He was called for an

interview. He then sought the marks granted in the interview. He found that two

candidates had scored more than him namely, Sanjeet Kumar who had obtained

70 marks and Narendra Kumar Biswal who had obtained 66 marks. The

petitioner had obtained 65 marks. All three belonged to Other Backward

Community.

32.The petitioner then raised a protest since he claimed to have direct

knowledge of the fact that Narendra Kumar Biswal did not have the requisite

experience as stipulated in the advertisement, pursuant to which they had all

applied to the said post. The experience required was three years in Analytical

Method and Research in the field of Explosives. It was the contention of the

petitioner that he had been working along with Narendra Kumar Biswal in

Cordite Factory and was therefore, very certain that Narendra Kumar Biswal did

not have the said experience. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page17 of 24

33.The application of Narendra Kumar Biswal was however accepted and

he was called to attend the interview. This would have been possible only when

he had submitted an application form reflecting that he was fully qualified for

the post and he had the requisite experience.

34.The petitioner sent a representation on 23.12.2013 alleging that

Narendra Kumar Biswal had produced a false Experience Certificate, which led

to his name being recommended for the said post while denying the petitioner

of that opportunity. The respondents however did not take any action on his

representation.

35.We hold that the said inaction on the part of the respondents had

directly affected the prospects of the petitioner. The application form provided

for a contingency when a candidate submitted fabricated documents or made

statements which were incorrect or false or had suppressed material

information. It had been stipulated that even one such false declaration would

render the candidate to be disqualified by the Commission / UPSC from

selection. This disqualification was not owing to any act of misfeasance or

conduct of the employee subsequent to his selection, but owing to furnishing of

false information in the application for being selected to the post of SSO Gr-II

(Explosives). When a candidate suffered disqualification owing to furnishing of

false information, then he/she, who had been interviewed and who had been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page18 of 24

granted marks in the interview should have been disqualified and it should have

been held that his/her application itself stood rejected.

36.The stand of the respondents in O.A.No.175 of 2014, was that the

petitioner stood in the first place in the reserve list and that the reserve list

would be active only for a period of 18 months normally or for 24 months under

exceptional circumstances. This contention of the respondents has to be

rejected, since the respondents could not have considered Narendra Kumar

Biswal as a candidate eligible to be considered for appointment and should have

disqualified him and should have pushed the petitioner to the second rank and

not retained him in the third rank or as a candidate in the reserve list.

37.The fact Narendra Kumar Biswal had submitted false information had

also been noted by the 2

nd

respondent in their show cause notice issued wherein,

they had very clearly pointed out by communication dated 23.10.2015 that a

scrutiny of the application revealed that he had submitted false information and

suppressed factual information in his online application dated 30.05.2013,

wherein, he had stated that he possessed experience as Junior Works Manager

in Cordite Factory, Aruvankadu w.e.f. 27.01.2003 to 30.05.2013. He had further

given his experience as Chargeman w.e.f. 27.01.2003 to 12.10.2010 and as

Junior Works Manager w.e.f. 13.10.2010 till the date of his application dated

30.05.2013. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page19 of 24

38.It was further pointed out that the Experience Certificate issued by

Cordite Factory stated that he was a permanent employee from 27.10.2003 as

Junior Works Manager. It was further pointed out that the information regarding

experience and the Experience Certificate did not align with the information

intimated by the employer. It was therefore observed that, it was apparent that

he had submitted false information and suppressed the true facts in his

application form. The declaration given by him in the application form were

then pointed out. The show cause notice was issued seeking an explanation why

his appointment should not be cancelled.

39.It is claimed that Narendra Kumar Biswal issued a reply, but the reply

was not available in the records. He however, issued a communication that he

had been selected through UPSC to another post and that he therefore does not

want to join the post of SSO Gr-II (Explosives) in CFSL.

40.It is extremely unfortunate that the 2

nd

respondent had dropped the

issue then and there. We hold that they should have disqualified his candidature

on the basis of the available records and since such disqualification would relate

back to the date of his application, wherein he had, even according to them,

furnished false information, he could never had been termed as the second rank

candidate. The petitioner should never had been ranked as a candidate in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page20 of 24

reserve list. We hold that the petitioner should have been moved up to the

second position.

41.The petitioner filed O.A.No.123 of 2017 seeking to consider his

appointment w.e.f. 16.12.2014. The Tribunal allowed the said application and

directed the respondents to issue an appointment order forthwith. This order can

only be interpreted as implying that an appointment order should be issued

reflecting that the petitioner had joined on 16.12.2014. The respondents issued

an appointment order, but denied him the benefits on and from 16.12.2014.

Seeking that benefit, the petitioner had filed a Miscellaneous Application, which

was dismissed and challenging that order, the present Writ Petition had been

filed.

42.In the Miscellaneous Application, the Tribunal had, very

unfortunately, refused to put into effect their own earlier order in O.A.No.123 of

2017. The Tribunal had faithfully accepted the stand of the respondents that the

appointment would be in effect from the date on which the petitioner had joined

duty. We hold that the Tribunal had a significant responsibility to examine

whether the denial of opportunity to the petitioner was owing to any fault on the

part of the petitioner or owing to the inaction on the part of the respondents. It

had been very categorically held in OA.No.123 of 2017 that it was only owing

to the inaction on the part of the respondents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page21 of 24

43.Under normal circumstances, the petitioner can never claim a right of

benefit prior to joining the post, however, he can certainly claim such benefit

when his candidature had been deliberately or otherwise overlooked in favour

of a candidate who was ineligible to even apply for the post and had still applied

for the post furnishing false information.

44.This would only indicate that the respondents have condoned

furnishing of false information. Such condonation would only lead to

encouragement of furnishing false information and when detected walking away

preventing any adjudication being made. That eventuality should be prohibited.

We hold that the respondents had a duty to adjudicate on the show cause notice,

either on the basis of the records available, which records have not been

disputed by Narendra Kumar Biswal and which related to his experience in

Cordite Factory and which established that he was not eligible to even apply for

the post of SSO Gr-II (Explosives) or on the basis of any explanation furnished.

We hold that since he was not eligible, the marks obtained by him should have

been struck off and the next candidate should have been moved up and be

considered for an appointment.

45.The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2020) 5 SCC

230, C.Jayachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Others, wherein a direct recruit https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page22 of 24

was wrongfully execluded, and it was held that he was eligible to be granted the

benefit to be part of the appointment with other candidates who had also applied

pursuant to the same advertisement is binding, is applicable to the facts of this

case.

46.The petitioner herein had been denied the opportunity to be appointed

on 16.12.2014 only owing to the acceptance of an ineligible application

submitted by Narendra Kumar Biswal. We hold that the respondents should

have taken action immediately and should have disqualified Narendra Kumar

Biswal and should have considered the petitioner for selection.

47.We hold that the Tribunal had failed to look into all these

circumstances and had closed their eyes, and had, in fact recognized furnishing

of false information in an application form as a fact which could be condoned

and overlooked. This is not permissible. We therefore allow the Writ Petition

and direct that the petitioner should be deemed to have been appointed on

16.12.2014 on par with Sanjeet Kumar, who had also applied for the same post

under the same advertisement. We however further hold that the petitioner

cannot be granted any monetary benefits and his services should be considered

notionally and notional promotion should also be granted and which he would

have got, had he been appointed on 16.12.2014 and the application of Narendra

Kumar Biswal had been rejected. We direct necessary orders in this regard must

be passed by the respondents within a period of six weeks from this date.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page23 of 24

48.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.)

02-04-2026

smv

Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

To

1.The Secretary,

Ministry of Home Affairs,

North Block, Central Secretariat,

New Delhi-110 001.

2.The Joint Secretary,

Union Public Service Commission,

Dholpur House Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi-110 069.

3.Director Cum Chief Forensic Scientist,

Directorate of Forensic Science Services,

Block No.9, 8th Floor, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No. 7426 of 2025

__________

Page24 of 24

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

AND

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

smv

Pre-delivery order made in

WP No. 7426 of 2025

02-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis