The Director of Animal Husbandry had filled the vacancies even as a writ petition questioning the selection process to fill the vacancies was pending before the high court.
While allowing a batch of pleas challenging the appointments, Justice Vinod K Sharma said the GO dating November 14, 2011 directing the posts to be filled only through employment exchange under Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services General rule was ultra vires of the Constitution "being violative of Articles 14 and 16".
The government order (GO) cannot stand the test of constitutional mandate of equality as enshrined in the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the judge said.
"The order is otherwise also arbitrary as Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rule of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services does not permit the filling up newly created posts through Employment Exchanges."
The court directed the Director of Animal Husbandry to fill the posts by advertising in the newspapers and other media, besides calling for names from employment exchange and thereafter, selecting the candidates on merits by fixing the criteria of selection as per decision of state government.
Any appointment merely by inviting names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement as it deprived eligible candidates having the requisite qualification from being considered, the judge said.
The petitioners had prayed for quashing the appointments and their names be considered for appointment as veterinary assistant surgeons.