JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short TNPSC) to forward the names of the petitioners to the Commissioner of Transport Department, so as to issue an order of appointment posting the petitioners as Motor Vehicle Inspectors Grade-II under the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service with retrospective effect from the date on which other selectees joined the post, with all consequential benefits. 2. The writ petition is yet to be admitted. When the writ petition came up on 12.07.2012, the petitioners were directed to service notice on the Standing Counsel for the second respondent. Accordingly, notice was served. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, dated 16.8.2012. The impleaded third respondent, i.e., the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption has also filed a counter affidavit, dated 13.09.2012. 3. The contention of the petitioners was that they were aspirants for the posts of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II. Pursuant to the notification, dated 24.2.2009 issued by the TNPSC notifying 65 vacancies in the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade II for the year 2006-2008, the petitioners made applications. By a supplement notification, dated 28.02.2009, 11 more vacancies were also included. The petitioners possess necessary qualifications. The written examination was conducted on 24.05.2009 and the oral interview was held on 07.10.2010 and 08.10.2010. The final results were published on 13.10.2010. The petitioners came out successful in the written examination and that they have also participated in the interview. In the final selection list, 49 candidates were declared selected and the names of 25 candidates were withheld for various reasons. Thus, for the total 76 notified vacancies, only 74 were accounted for. The TNPSC did not do anything for the remaining 2 vacancies. The final list also showed the register numbers of 24 candidates, who were informed that they were kept in the reserve list in respect of their community-wise reservation. It was also indicated that candidates in the reserve list would be considered for allotment to the respective categories against the vacancies caused due to non joining of duty by selected candidates, the selected candidates who joined duty, but left the service thereafter and also due to cancellation of provisional selection of selected candidates for any reason. The persons whose names were withheld did not join the post. The persons whose names were withheld did not join the post. Therefore, it was contended that the resultant vacancies will have to be filled up by the candidates from the reserve list. It was also stated that the selection of one P.Ponnusamy and V.Manoharan was cancelled and further the names of three candidates, i.e., P.Mathivanan, Ramesh and Satish, whose names were withheld, were also cancelled. Thus, the posts were vacant. Instead of filling up the names of petitioners, who were in the reserve list, the TNPSC had attempted to include those vacancies in the subsequent selection list. Hence the writ petition came to be filed. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, in paragraphs 5 and 7, it was averred as follows : "5.....it is submitted that the selection of suitable candidates to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector-Grade-II under the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service Rules rests with the 2nd respondent. After getting the selection list from the 2nd respondent, the appointment orders will be issued by the 1st respondent to the selected candidates as per the rules in force. Even several remainders, no information regarding the confirmation of provision of selection of 9 withheld candidates has been received from the 2nd respondent. At this stage it is not known whether the above withheld candidates have to be selected or not. Hence, the information furnished in the affidavit has not been confirmed by the 1st respondent. All the above particulars are only pertaining with the 2nd respondent. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent will not be in a position to give any relief sought for by the petitioner. 7.....it is submitted that the at present 22 posts in the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspectors Grade-II are vacant. Out of 22 vacancies, 9 posts are proposed to be filled up by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission from the withheld candidates pertaining to the year 2006-2008 and 17 vacancies (including forthcoming retirement vacancies and vacancies caused due to promotion to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-I and also creation of new posts in the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-II) have since been notified by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the year 2012-2013 In Notification No.24/2012, dated 25.06.2012. In the above facts and circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner i.e. to keep Five posts of Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade-II as vacant, is not feasible at this stage." 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it was stated that On a specific complaint of various malpractices and irregularities in the selection and criminal misconduct including allegation of preventing the Government servant from discharging his official duties, a criminal case was registered by the DVAC under various provisions of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act against the then Chairman of the TNPSC and 13 other accused, who were the members of the TNPSC. During the course of the investigation, searches were conducted at the residential premises and chambers of the then Chairman and 13 other accused and that incriminating documents were seized in the residential premises, office chambers and the TNPSC office. The seized documents included hall tickets of several candidates appearing for different examinations being conducted by the TNPSC for different posts in the Government service, call letters in the names of candidates who were to appear for oral interview in the TNPSC, diaries containing registration numbers and phone numbers with the name of candidates, unpublished results of several selections done by the TNPSC, scribbling to show the payments received and recommendation letters from Ministers and other persons with details of candidates. A search was also conducted in the office of the TNPSC and that recruitment files relating to Group-I examinations, answer sheets of written examination conducted for Group-I exams, recruitment files and answer sheets relating to Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-II were all seized. Thus, the police have seized 800 documents. The DVAC had conducted investigation pursuant to the FIR. During the course of investigation, hard disks containing data of objective and written examination details of candidates in various examinations were seized from the computer processing centre of the TNPSC. The materials were sent to the centre for Development of Advanced Computing, Tiruvanandapuram. 6. In paragraph 8 of the counter, it was averred as follows : "8. Allegation of malpractice in the selection of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-II for the year 2006-2008 is incorporated in the First Information Report itself and therefore the entire selection of MVI Grade-II for the year 2006-2008 is subject matter for investigation. 6. In paragraph 8 of the counter, it was averred as follows : "8. Allegation of malpractice in the selection of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-II for the year 2006-2008 is incorporated in the First Information Report itself and therefore the entire selection of MVI Grade-II for the year 2006-2008 is subject matter for investigation. Moreover hundreds of Hall-Tickets and references of candidates who appeared for examinations for various posts including MVI, Grade-II were seized from the possession of accused who are members of the TNPSC and also from the touts who acted as middlemen between the members of the TNPSC and the candidates. All the seized documents have to be investigated to come to a conclusion on the bonafide of the selection process for MVI, Grade-II." 7. In the meantime, the State Government had issued G.O.(Ms.)No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 09.08.2011 bringing the Chairman and Members of the TNSPC under the purview of the State Vigilance Commission and Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Challenging the said inclusion, the members of the TNPSC have preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No.34870-34872 of 2011 and further investigation was stayed by the Supreme Court on 23.01.2012. Since the very selection list has been tainted and investigation is still in progress, the question of direction to give appointment orders to the petitioners whose names were found in the reserve list, does not arise. 8. However, Mr. K.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon an interim order passed by this court in W.P.No.23663 of 2011 and batch cases, dated 24.02.2012 relating to appointment of Group-II posts, wherein an order dated 23.12.2011 directing to issue the appointment and posting orders to selected candidates was modified. In paragraph 5 of the order, it was observed as follows : "5. Taking note of this, the order dated 23.12.2011 is modified to the effect that any appointment made in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 23.12.2011 will be subject to the result of the proceedings initiated by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department as against the members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the outcome of SLPs pending before the Honourable Apex Court as well as the result of the above writ petitions." 9. When the contention of the respondents was that the very selection itself was tainted and made pursuant to corrupt practice indulged by the TNPSC members and the investigation itself was stalled by the members of the TNPSC and that the matter is pending before the Supreme court, the grant of such direction will be repugnant to the rule of law. This court is not inclined to grant any such direction unless selections are held to be valid. Further it was stated that those posts will have to be filled up again by fresh notification. Therefore, the present attempt by the petitioners is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.