In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court upheld the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) Regulation 1954, which subjected the Chairman and Members of TNPSC to the State Vigilance Commission and Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, effective from August 9, 2011.

The court, comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy, emphasized that the amendment did not alter the rights or service conditions of the Chairman and members. It clarified that the amendment merely introduced an investigating agency and was not deemed arbitrary.

The legal challenge Involved two batches of petitions. The first contested a government order from August 9, 2011, bringing TNPSC officials under the purview of the State Vigilance Commission and Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The second batch challenged the amendment to TNPSC Regulations that removed the exemption granted to the Chairman and Members, bringing them under scrutiny.

Petitioners, who were TNPSC officials, argued that their exclusion in the TNPSC Regulation couldn’t be overridden by executive instructions. They asserted that altering the terms and conditions of their service was impermissible.

The court acknowledged that a Government Order couldn’t supersede statutory provisions and observed that the issued order contradicted existing TNPSC Regulations. Consequently, the court set aside the Government Order, declaring it illegal and arbitrary.

Despite this, the court recognized the Chairman and members as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, asserting that they could be prosecuted for offenses under the Act. The court upheld the amendments, highlighting that they didn’t introduce new offenses or alter service conditions, but were a procedural necessity.

Addressing the retrospective application argument, the court clarified that this principle only applied when vested rights were affected. In this case, the change in the investigating agency was deemed a procedural matter without impacting vested rights.

In conclusion, the court’s decision affirmed the Governor’s authority to bring TNPSC officials under the State Vigilance Commission and DVAC, emphasizing the importance of procedural amendments while safeguarding the autonomy of the TNPSC.

Key Points from the Madras High Court Ruling:

1. Limited Impact on Rights and Service Conditions:
– The court asserted that the amendment did not erode the rights or service conditions of the Chairman and members of TNPSC. It emphasized that the amendment introduced an investigating agency without altering substantive rights.

2. Government Order Overruled:
– The court invalidated the Government Order of August 9, 2011, highlighting its inconsistency with existing TNPSC Regulations. It clarified that executive orders could not supersede statutory provisions.

3. Recognition of Public Servant Status:
– Despite the ruling against the Government Order, the court acknowledged TNPSC officials as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, allowing for potential prosecution under the Act.

4. Procedural Amendment Upheld:
– The court upheld the amendments as procedural necessities, emphasizing that no new offenses were introduced, and service conditions remained unaffected.

5. Retrospective Application Clarification:
– The court clarified that retrospective application principles only applied when vested rights were affected. In this case, the change in the investigating agency was deemed a procedural matter without impacting vested rights.

6. Autonomy of TNPSC Safeguarded:
– While upholding the amendments, the court highlighted the necessity to insulate and safeguard the autonomy and independence of the TNPSC from political pressure.

In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court’s ruling balances the need for an investigating agency with the protection of the rights and autonomy of TNPSC officials, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.