Madras High Court

Mr.S.Mohamed Aslam vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis ( ... on 22 April, 2025

Author: C.V.Karthikeyan

Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 17.03.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 22.04.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.Nos. 32347, 28656, 32229, 31876. 33853, 33238, 31325, 32143,
32200, 32215, 34453, 35593, 31809, 32201, 32417, 32180 & 32176 of
2024
And
W.P.No. 5652 of 2025
And
W.M.P.Nos. 35129, 35131, 31258, 35008, 36670, 36026, 33979, 33981,
34910, 34967, 34968, 34990, 34991, 37336, 38464, 38465, 34575, 34971,
34972, 35201, 34940 & 34933 of 2024
And
W.M.P.No. 6244 of 2025

W.P.No. 32347 of 2024:

1. Mr.S.Mohamed Aslam

2. Mr.C.Sampath

3. Miss.V.Maragathavalli ... Petitioners

..Vs..

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
2

1. The Director General of Police/Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the revised provisional selection list issued by the second
respondent for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 08.10.2024 and the
consequential letters issued in (i) C.No. R2/1616/2023-4, dated 10.10.2024,
(ii) C.No.R2/1616/2023-3, dated 10.10.2024 and (iii) C.No.R2/1616/2023-
29 dated 10.10.2024 on the file of the second respondent and quash the
same as illegal incompetent and ultra vires and consequently direct the
respondents to appoint the first petitioner in the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police (AR) under BCM (PSTM) category, 2nd petitioner in the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police (TSP) under MBC & DNC (PSTM) category and 3rd
petitioner in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (TK) under SCA-(W)
category respectively.
***

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
3

For Petitioner :: Mr. S.Prabhakaran
Senior Counsel
for Mr. MA.Gouthaman

For 1st Respondent : Mr. M.Shajahan
Special Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel
W.P.No.28656 of 2024:

M.Govindarasu ... Petitioner

..Vs..

The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old COP Office Complex, Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire
records relating to the final provisional selection list dated 29.01.2024 made
in RC No.R2/1616/TNUSRB/2023 on the file of the respondent and quash
the same in respect of the non-selection of the petitioner and consequently
direct the respondent to select eight candidates under OC quota and four
candidates under SC quota as per recruitment notification No.1/2023 dated
23.05.2023.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
4

***
For Petitioner :: Mr. C.Munusamy

For Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel
W.P.No.32229 of 2024:

R.Prabhakaran ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Secretary to Government
Home (Pol.II) Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai -9.

2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. The Director General of Police
and Head of Police Force
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Maylapore, Chennai -4. ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
5

list of Department (Police) dated 03.10.2024 of Departmental candidates
under 20% quota for the candidates Antecedent Verification and Medical
Examination for the Joint Recruitment-2023 for the post of Sub-Inspector of
Police and quash the same in unconstitutional to the extent of not following
the Rule of Reservation in respect of Scheduled Caste candidates in all
stages of selection and also prescribing separate cut off marks for
Taluk/Armed Reserve / Tamilnadu Special Police, thereby not selecting the
petitioner under Scheduled Caste Reservation category and direct the
respondents to follow the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in 2021 4 SCC 686 in the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs.
K.Shobana and also in the case of Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttarpradesh and Ors reported in 2021 4 SCC 542 and consequentially
issue directions to the respondents to select the petitioner to the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police and include his name under Scheduled Caste quota by
strictly following the Rule of Reservation and grant all consequential
service and benefits.
***
For Petitioner :: Mr. K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan

For RR 1 &3 : Mr. M.Shajahan
Special Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
6

W.P.No. 31876 of 2024:

K.Syed Sulthan Ibrahim ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Director General of Police/Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Board
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

2. The Superintendent of Police
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary
Home (Police) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

4. Gomathi

5. Srudeesh Thileeban

6. R.Saravanakumar

7. M.Aravind

8. S.Tamilarasan

9. Rajkumar

10. Sameer Ahamed ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
7

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to
revise and revisit (recast) the provisional Selection List dated 04.10.2024 by
preparing the list of candidates under General Turn (GT) at the first instance
in consideration of meritorious candidates irrespective of community
followed by communal vacancies in accordance with the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.Shobana reported in
2021 (4) SCC 686, thereby to consider the claim of the petitioner for
selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under category reserved for
BC(M).
***
For Petitioner :: Mr. L.Chandrakumar

For RR 1 & 2 :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

For 3rd Respondent :: Mr. V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader

For RR 4 to 10 :: Mr. V.Karnan

W.P.No.33853 of 2024:

1. K.Tamilzhselvan

2. Venkatesh ... Petitioners

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
8

..Vs..

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to the Government
Ministry of Home Department
Saint George Fort, Chennai.

2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner Office Complex,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the Provisional Revised Selection list of Department (Police)
candidates for CAV and ME, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment
Board, Chennai -08, Joint Recruitment -2023, dated 03.10.2024 issued by
the second respondent, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
respondents to issue a revised selection list pursuant to the recruitment
Notification No.01/2023 dated 05.05.2023 in compliance with the principle
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu Vs.
K.Shobana (2021 (4) SCC 686) and Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of
Uttarpradesh (2021 (4) SCC 542) and thereby to select and appoint the
petitioners to the post of Sub-Inspector.
***
For Petitioners :: Ms. S.Meenakshi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
9

For 1st Respondent :: Mr.S.Yashwanth
Additional Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel
W.P.No.33238 of 2024:

M.Tamil Arasu ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Secretary to Government
Home (Police) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Represented by its Chairman
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned selection list published by the second
respondent Board in its official website on 08.10.2024 and quash the same
as illegal and to consequently direct the respondents to appoint the
petitioner under BC (Sports) category in the post of Sub Inspector of Police
(Taluk).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
10

***
For Petitioner :: Mr. M.Ravi

For 1st Respondent :: Mr. M.Shajahan
Special Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel
W.P.No.31325 of 2024:

Uma Suganthi ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Secretary to Government
Home (Police III) Department
Fort St. George
Chennai - 600009

2. The Chairman
T.N. Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. The Director General of Police
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.

4. Sethu Raman

5. Iyappan Balu

6. P.Sudalai

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
11

7. Santhiyaku Priso

8. Arun Kishore

9. V.Rajasekar

10. M.Abarna

11. S.Petchimuthu

12. T.Rajaguru

13. B.Sumathi

14. A.Mohan Raj

15. J.Aravindh

16. M.Alagu Malaiyan

17. P.Aravind

18. V.Manikandan

19. M.Arivalagan

20. E.Alexander

21. P.Sathishanand

22. A.Vadivel Murugan

23. R.Mohanraj

24. M.Balraj

25. K.Selvaraja

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
12

26. K.Manikandan

27. T.Naganatha Sethupathi

28. V.Pattulakshmanan

29. A.Roselinrubavathi

30. R.Prathap

31. J.Faizal

32. G.Menaga

33. M.Dinesh Kannan

34. V.Muthuvedi

35. R.Karthick

36. P.Karthik

37. S.Saravanan

38. M.M.Krishaveni

39. T.Pragatheeswaran

40. R.Chandru

41. P.Anand Kumar

42. P.Rajavel

43. M.Vaishnavi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
13

44. M.Gunaseelan

45. S.Kanagaraj

46. M.Hariharan

47. G.Elumalai

48. S.Hajith Basha

49. M.Velaiyan

50. Manoj

51. Gokul S

52. Thamaraiselvi R

53. Deivasigamani M

54. Ezhil Mani K

55. Hariharasudhan M

56. K.Prakash

57. Raamkumar P M

58. Sobanbabu S

59. Velmurugan A

60. V.K.Vinothkumar

61. Sathishkumar G

62. Vignesh R

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
14

63. Sharukkhan B

64. Vasubalan P

65. Karuppasamy S

66. Gokulkannan M

67. Pandi M

68. Prithviraj K

69. Arunpandiyan M

70. Sethuajay SP

71. Vignesh A

72. Santhanakrishnan A

73. J Pearson

74. Jebaraj

75. M.Krishnamoorthy

76. Kamalraj

77. Kishore R

78. Suresh K

79. A.Rishop

80. K.Sundhareswaran

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
15

81. Dhinakaran Mahendiran

82. S.Udhayaprakash

83. Sharmila S

84. M.Sivaramakrishnan

85. Shunmugapriya. G

86. Dhanalakshmi

87. Thannairam Moorthy

88. Muthu Selvam

89. Naveen Kumar M

90. K.Sathiya Kumar

91. Kalaiyarasan

92. Suresh Kumar S

93. Radha Krishnan M

94. Ramar S

95. S.Revathi

96. Ajithraj A

97. S.Ponerulappn

98. Suriyadeepan K

99. E.Priya

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
16

100. Sangavi L

101. Nikhil M

102. I.Dhanasekar

103. G.Indhumathi

104. Saravanan M

105. Purushothaman V

106. R.Ramanathan

107. Raaja

108. Venkatesh K

109. Subash.T

110. Vivek Manoj

111. T.Kasturi Lakshmi

112. Muthu Kumar

113. M.Mohamed Amanulla

114. Suvalakshmi @ Santhiya R

115. S.Selvalakshmi

116. K.Suriyakumar

117. M.Kannan

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
17

118. P.Nishanthan

119. C.Sakthivel
120. T.Abishiek

121. M.Nainar

122. M.Selva Veni M

123. V.Selvaganeshan

124. Ajith Raj D

125. Eben Christopher

126. Dhivya

127. Kottai Mani

128. Shivdharsan

129. Balakumaravel

130. Vinithkumar V

131. Mahalakshmi G

132. R.Manosundar

133. Dilliduri .M

134. Dhivagar. A

135. Balakrishnan V

136. G.Vinoth

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
18

137. Thulasi Raj. R

138. Pradeep
139. Karthick Raja M

140. Nithish Kumaran P

141. S.Alexander

142. Nagoor Meeran

143. Inbasagaran

144. V.Thirumoorthy

145. M Sankar Pandi

146. I.Sathya Leka

147. Ranjitha

148. R.Karthick Ramesh

149. K.Thamilarasan ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the provisional selection list in notification No.1/2023
published on 03.10.2024 issued by the second respondent and quash the
same as unconstitutional, so far as the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the
category of backward class (women) and consequently direct the
respondents to implement 30% of reservation for women as per Section 26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
19

of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act and
rule 3(a)(i) read with annexure-I of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police
Subordinate Service and consequently select and appoint the petitioner as
Sub Inspector of Police with all service and monetary benefits from the date
on which the other selected candidates are appointed.
***
For Petitioner :: Ms. Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Advocate
for Mr.P.Arumugavel

For RR 1 &3 :: Mr.V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

For RR 4 to 8 : M/s. Ajmal Associates

For RR 9 to 49 :: M/s. Ajmal Associates

For RR 50 to 149 :: Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar

W.P.No.5652 of 2025:

R.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Secretary to Government
Home (Police III) Department

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
20

Fort St. George
Chennai - 9

2. The Secretary to Government
Human Resources Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

3. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Road,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

4. The Director General of Police
Head of Police Force,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai
Mylapore,
Chennai – 5. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of
the provisional list of Sub-Inspectors directly recruited for the year 2023
(departmental police candidates) published by the third respondent dated
03.10.2024 and quash the same in so far as the non-inclusion of the
petitioner is concerned, and consequently direct the respondents to re-do the
entire placement of candidates following the rule of reservation (20%) and
further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-
Inspector of Police and send him for training.
***
For Petitioner :: Mr. K.Venkatramani
Senior Counsel

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
21

for Mr.M.Muthappan

For RR 1 &3 :: Mr. S.Yaswanth
Additional Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No.32143 of 2024:

J.Abirami ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Secretary to Government
Home (Police) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Represented by its Chairman
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
22

respondent Board in its official website on 08.10.2024 as so per as
petitioner concern and quash the same as illegal and to consequently direct
the respondents to appoint the petitioner under MBC (Sports) category in
the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Taluk).
***
For Petitioner :: Mr. Sharath Chandran

For 1st Respondent :: Ms. P. Vijaya Devi
Government Advocate

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No.32200 of 2024:

G.Vishnupriya ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Home Department
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
23

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the Provisional Revised Selection list issued by the second
respondent for the post of Sub Inspector dated 03.10.2024 and the
consequential letter issued in C.No.R2/1616/2023-21 dated 10.10.2024 on
the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent
and ultravires, so far as the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the sports
category and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in
the post of Sub-Inspector (TK) under GT-W (PSTM) (Sports) category.
***
For Petitioner :: Ms. Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Advocate
for Mr.R.Jayaprakash

For 1st Respondent :: Ms. A.Bakkiya Lakshmi
Government Advocate

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No.32215 of 2024:

B.Shahira Banu ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Secretary to Government

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
24

Home (Police) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Represented by its Chairman
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Represented by
The Inspector General of Police/Member Secretary
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

4. R.Yashmin ... Respondents

For 1st Respondent :: Mr. C.Jaya Prakash
Government Advocate

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
25

For RR 2 & 3 :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

For 4th Respondent : Ms. N.Kavitha Rameshwar

W.P.No.34453 of 2024:

1. Jasminenisha A

2. Mohamed Azarudeen. P ... Petitioners

..Vs..

1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Secretary to Government
Home (Police) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Represented by its Chairman
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
26

official website on 08.10.2024 and quash the same as illegal and
consequently as so per as petitioner concern and direct the respondents to
appoint the petitioner under BC (Muslim)-Women category in the post of
Sub Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) and the second petitioner under
BC (Muslim) category in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (TSP).
***
For Petitioner :: Mr. G.Harshavarthan

For 1st Respondent :: Mr. M.Shajahan
Special Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No. 35593 of 2024:

Ms.N.Kokila ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Director General of Police/Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
27

Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the revised provisional selection list issued by the second
respondent for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, dated 08.10.2024 and the
consequential letter issued in C.No. R2/1616/2023-24, dated 10.10.2024, on
the file of the second respondent and quash in so far as the petitioner
concern the same as illegal incompetent and ultra vires and consequently
direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sub-Inspector
of Police (AR) under BC (W) (Sports) category.
***
For Petitioner :: Mr. MA.Gouthaman

For 1st Respondent : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No.31809 of 2024:

A.Arunkumar ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Secretary to Government

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
28

Home (Police) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Represented by its Chairman
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
the impugned selection list published by the second respondent Board in its
official website on 08.10.2024 so per as petitioner concern and quash the
same as illegal and to consequently direct the respondents to appoint the
petitioner under MBC (PSTM) category in the post of Sub Inspector of
Police (Taluk).
***
For Petitioner :: Mr. G.Harshavarthan

For 1st Respondent :: Mr. S.Yashwanth
Additional Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No.32201 of 2024:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
29

B.Ajithnathan ... Petitioner

..Vs..

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Home Department
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
pertaining to the Provisional Revised Selection list issued by the second
respondent for the post of Sub Inspector dated 03.10.2024 and the
consequential letter issued in C.No.R2/1616/2023-21 dated 10.10.2024 on
the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent
and ultravires, so far as the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the sports
category and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in
the post of Sub-Inspector (TSP) under MBC/DNC (Sports) category.
***
For Petitioner :: Ms. Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Advocate
for Mr.R.Jayaprakash

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
30

For 1st Respondent :: Ms. P. Vijaya Devi
Government Advocate

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No.32417 of 2024:

1. M.Venkatesan

2. P.Raja

3. I.Kathiresan ... Petitioners

..Vs..

1. The Secretary to Government
Home (Pol.II) Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai -9.

2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. The Director General of Police
and Head of Police Force
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Maylapore, Chennai -4. ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
31

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of
the second respondent in connection with the revised provisional selection
list dated 03.10.2024 of Department candidates under 20% quota for the
candidates Antecedent Verification and Medical Examination for the Joint
Recruitment-2023 for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and quash the
same as unconstitutional to the extent of not following the Rule of
Reservation in respect of MBC/DNC candidates in all stages of selection
and also prescribing separate cut off marks for Taluk/Armed Reserve /
Tamilnadu Special Police, thereby not selecting the petitioner under
MBC/DNC Reservation category and direct the respondents to follow the
Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 4 SCC
686 in the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs. K.Shobana and also in the case of
Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarpradesh and Ors reported in 2021 4
SCC 542 and consequently issue directions to the respondents to select the
petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and include his name under
MBC/DNC quota by strictly following the Rule of Reservation and grant all
consequential service and benefits.
***
For Petitioners :: Mr. K.Venkataramani
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Muthappan

For RR 1 &3 : Ms.A.Bakkiya Lakshmi
Government Advocate

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
32

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No.32180 of 2024:

1. R.Surya

2. Aiswarya. V

3. Ramachandran. A

4. Hariharan. G ... Petitioners

..Vs..

1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Secretary to Government
Home (Police) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Represented by its Chairman
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
33

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
the impugned selection list published by the second respondent Board in its
official website on 08.10.2024 and quash the same as illegal and to
consequently direct the respondents to appoint the 1st and 2nd petitioners
under BC (Sports) category in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Armed
Reserve), Sub Inspector of Police (Taluk) respectively and the 3rd and 4th
petitioners in the post of Sub Inspector of Police (TSP).
***
For Petitioners :: Mr. K.Sharath Chandran

For 1st Respondent :: Mr. M.Shajakhan
Special Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

W.P.No.32176 of 2024:

1. Tamilarasan.K

2. Vinoth.S,

3. Sathiyamoorthy. C

4. P.Priya ... Petitioners

..Vs..

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
34

1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Secretary to Government
Home (Police) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George
Chennai – 600 009.

2. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Represented by its Chairman
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. R.Vasanth

4. Maruthupandian

5. Clindon ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
the impugned selection list published by the second respondent Board in its
official website on 08.10.2024 and quash the same as illegal and to
consequently direct the respondents to appoint the 1st and 2nd petitioners
under MBC (Ward-Executive) category in the post of Sub Inspector of
Police (TSP) and BC (Ward-Executive) category in the post of Sub
Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) and the 3rd and 4th petitioners under SC
(Ward-Executive) category and MBC (Ministerial-Female) category in the
posts of Sub Inspector of Police (Taluk) respectively.
***

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )
35

For Petitioners :: Mr. Sharath Chandran

For 1st Respondent :: Mr. V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader

For 2nd Respondent :: Mr. P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Ms. D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel

For RR 3 to 5 :: Ms. N.Kavitha Rameshwar

COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed in the nature of Certiorarified

Mandamus seeking records relating to the Revised Provisional Selection list

issued on 08.10.2024 by the second respondent / Member Secretary, Tamil

Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai, for the post of Sub-

Inspector of Police, and also the records relating to the consequential letters

dated 10.10.2024 in C.No.R2/1616/2023-4 and dated 10.10.2024 in

C.No.R2/1616/2023-3 and dated 10.10.2024 in C.No.R2/1616/2023-29 on

the file of the second respondent and quash the Revised Provisional

Selection list and also the aforementioned letters and direct the respondents

to appoint the writ petitioners in their respective categories to the post of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Sub-Inspector of Police.

The Notification:

2. The second respondent/ the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu

Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai had issued Notification

No.1/2023 on 05.05.2023 for direct recruitment for the post of Sub

Inspector of Police -2023 (Taluk, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special

Police (Men, Women and Transgenders) and invited online applications

from Indian citizens alone. The date of commencement of online

application was 01.06.2023. The last date for submission of online

applications was 30.06.2023. It had been stated that out of the total

vacancies 20% i.e., 123 posts would be reserved for departmental

candidates.

3. The break up of the vacancies for the posts of Sub-Inspector of

Police, Taluk Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police had also been

separately given. Reservation for woman candidates for the post of Sub-

Inspector of Police (Taluk & AR) had been provided but no such

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

reservation had been provided for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (TSP).

The Departmental quota was also given. The quota for wards and sports

quota was given. It was also provided that in every such selection, 20% of

the vacancies will be set apart on preferential basis for candidates, who had

studied in Tamil medium. This was not applicable for departmental quota

candidates. The minimum qualifying marks in the main written

examination for the open candidates and departmental candidates was also

given.

4. An addendum was later issued on 23.05.2023 wherein the

vacancies for the post of Station Officers, Fire and Rescue Department (men

and women) were also given and similar details like the vacancies for men

and women and the total vacancies was also given.

5. The examinations were conducted and a provisional selection list

was published on 29.01.2024.

The First Challenge:-

6. A series of Writ Petitions were then filed questioning the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

provisional selection list raising an issue that the reservation policy was not

followed properly and if it had been followed properly, the writ petitioners

therein would have been selected.

7. By an order dated 21.06.2024, a learned Single Judge of this Court

in a batch of Writ Petitions took into consideration the submission made by

the learned Additional Advocate General that the respondents were also of

the prima facie view that errors had crept in while implementing the

reservation policy and that they would redo the selection list and that a

revised list would be placed before the Court. While directing the said

exercise to be carried out, the learned Single Judge had noted that this

exercise must be redone from the stage of short listing of the candidates for

physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test and viva-

voce which would mean after the stage of the written test. The learned

Single Judge had therefore issued the following directions, noting the

submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General:-

“3. It is also clarified by the learned Additional Advocate General for the second

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

respondent that they will redo the exercise of short-listing the candidates for physical measurement test, endurance test, physical efficiency test, viva-voice etc. In the said list, if any of the new candidates are called, they will alone be called for physical measurement tests, endurance tests, physical efficiency tests etc., and in respect of the candidates who have already undergone the tests, the said tests will not be undertaken. However, their measurements and marks will be taken as such and a new list will be prepared in accordance with law. He also submits that due care will be undertaken to meticulously follow the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Saurav Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.1 and State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.Shobana 2 and the revised select list will be published in accordance with law. It is also represented on behalf of the respondents that the entire exercise will be conducted within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. In view thereof, the grievances of all the writ petitioners, in all these Writ Petitions, shall

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

stand redressed. It goes without saying that if, on the publication of the revised list or even short-

listing of the list or even in the physical endurance test, any other person has any other grievance, the same can be agitated afresh.

5. Recording the above, all these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ”

Issuance of the Revised Provisional list:-

8. The respondents, claiming that they had followed the

aforementioned directions of the learned Single Judge in letter and spirit

then issued the Revised Provisional List on 03.10.2024. However, in this

Revised Provisional Selection list, the respondents provided only the Roll

numbers of the candidates and the unit / Taluk, Armed Reserve, Tamil Nadu

Special Police and Station Officer, to which they had been allotted. No

further details had been given.

The Second Challenge:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

9. The Writ Petitions now under consideration were then filed

complaining that the names of the writ petitioners had been included in the

First Provisional List but omitted in the Revised Provisional List and that

those, who were omitted in the first list had now been included in the

second list and that therefore, this Court should call for the records of the

Revised Provisional Selection List and re-examine the same.

Interim Orders Passed:-

10. A learned Single Judge of this Court before whom the Writ

Petitions were listed on 28.10.2024 observed that the contentions raised by

the writ petitioners could be properly appreciated only if the Revised

Provisional List is also published in the same format as it was earlier

published on 29.01.2024.

11. This particular format included providing details relating to the

Rotation, Turn, Name, Community, Gender, Written Marks out of 70,

Endurance Test Marks, Viva voce Marks, Special Marks and the Total

Marks. It was directed that the said list shall be provided for all categories

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

and the ratio of 1:5 followed by the ratio 1:2 shall also be properly shown in

the prescribed format. It had been observed that further issues raised like

provision of 30% reservation for women could be dealt with only after the

details are published.

Publication of Provisional Selection List with Details:

12. When the matter was then listed before this Court on 19.02.2025,

it was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that on or

before 24.02.2025 the Provisional List would be published as a Draft

Selection List which would be subject to the outcome of the result of the

writ petitions. The list with the requisite details and data was then published

on 08.10.2024. Copies were also given to the learned Senior Counsels /

Counsels for the writ petitioners, who took time to give further instructions

and advance arguments.

The Arguments:-

13. Arguments were advanced by Mr.S.Prabhakaran, Senior

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Counsel, Mr.K.Venkatramani, Senior Counsel, Ms. Dakshayani Reddy,

Senior Counsel, Mr.M.Ravi, Mr.C.Munusamy, Mr.M.A.Gouthaman,

Mr.C.D.Johnson, Mr.Sharath Chandran, Ms.S.Meenakshi and

Mr.Harshavardhan for the writ petitioners in the various Writ Petitions and

by Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the

respondents.

The Arguments-Petitioners:

14. Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Senior Counsel assailed the Revised

Provisional Selection List by pointing out that the respondents had

completely done away with basic principles relating to the methodology of

applying the reservation policy. The learned Senior Counsel with specific

reference to the facts in W.P.No. 32347 of 2024 argued that all the three

writ petitioners therein had been initially selected and notified as selected in

the first Provisional List. The first writ petitioner was selected under the

BCM (PSTM) category. The second petitioner was selected under the MBC

/ DNC (PSTM) category and the third petitioner was selected under the

SCA (W) (PSTM) category.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

15. In the Revised Provisional Selection List, the first petitioner

was declared as not selected. The second petitioner was declared as

disqualified in Physical Endurance Test and the third petitioner was

declared as not selected.

16. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that those, who had not

been selected in the first list had now been shown as selected and the earlier

selected candidates have been declared as not selected. In this connection,

the learned Senior Counsel gave specific instances to point out that the

Revised Provisional List had actually been prepared with mala fide

intention to include specific candidates and to exclude the candidates who

had been shown as selected in the first list.

17. He pointed out a candidate, Ranjith Kumar G, who had been

selected in GT (PSTM) and belonged to MBC /DNC category and who had

got a total of 79.75 marks and had been selected under the Sports Quota.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

18. The second writ petitioner had earlier been selected under the

Sports Quota, had obtained higher marks, 81.25, but had however been

declared as disqualified in the physical endurance test. The marks had been

disclosed for the physical endurance test when the first list was published.

The second petitioner Sampath. C had obtained 15 out of 15 marks for

physical endurance test. The learned Senior Counsel wondered how having

obtained 15 marks in the only time when the said test was conducted, the

second petitioner was declared disqualified in the physical endurance test.

19. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that Ranjith

Kumar, who had been selected under the sports quota had actually obtained

less than 80 marks which was less than the cut off mark for that category.

20. He also pointed out the selection of Manikandan. S in MBC

/DNC (PSTM) turn and who belonged to MBC / DNC and who got a total

mark of 78.75 and had been included in the sports quota though again he

had obtained less than the cut off mark for the sports quota.

21. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out the inclusion of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Kumaravel. C under the general turn. He belonged to BC community and

had got 88.25 marks totally. The learned Senior Counsel claimed that this

candidate should have been included in the general turn under the open

quota. The marks obtained by him, 88.25 was higher then most of the

candidates, who had been included in the open quota. If he had been so

included in the open quota, then a deserving candidate under the Backward

community would have been selected. The learned Senior Counsel therefore

argued that the reservation policy to uplift deserving candidates had been

given a go by and deserving candidates from the reserved category had been

deliberately omitted to be included in the list.

22. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out the instance of

Yasmin.R, who had been selected under the BCM(W) (PSTM) category and

who had been selected under the open quota with a total mark of 69.29. This

candidate had actually applied under the name of Lakshmi and was not

selected in the original list. After the earlier Writ Petitions had been filed

when specific directions had been given that the respondents must redo the

exercise only from conducting the physical endurance test alone onwards,

this candidate had submitted certificates relating to PSTM and that she had

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

converted to Islam and those certificates were accepted after the first

provisional list had been released. The learned Senior Counsel stated that

the respondents had violated the rules and regulations by accepting the

certificates after the completion of the selection process and including her

under the BCM (W) (PSTM). It was asserted that she had never claimed

PSTM reservation when she had applied for the post. In this connection, the

learned counsel pointed out the first selection list for the said candidate with

enrollment No. 5104713 wherein she was given the total mark of 52.5 and

was not selected.

23. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the respondents

had applied horizontal reservation within horizontal reservation which

principle is unheard of. He pointed out that under the sports quota, once

again reservation was granted to PSTM and to non PSTM candidates.

Similarly under the ward quota further reservation was granted to PSTM

and non PSTM category. The learned Senior Counsel therefore argued that

the Revised Provisional List as published had enabled undeserving

candidates to be included and deserving candidates to be omitted without

any reason. He therefore strongly asserted that the said list must be struck

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

down by the Court.

24. Mr. K.Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel, who was

instructed to argue in W.P.No. 32417 of 2024 and in W.P.No. 5652 of 2025

pointed out that two different methodologies had been adopted while

selecting the candidates under the 200% roster. Learned Senior Counsel

argued that when the candidates were short listed in the initial stage in the

ratio 1:5 and 1:2, the roster commencing from 90 onwards had been

followed. But however in the final selection of candidates in the 1:1 ratio,

this was not followed. The respondents had selected 23 candidates

comprising of 16 men and 7 women under the 31% reservation under

general turn and the rest of the candidates from turn Nos. 90 to 164 for

category I and for category II, 8 candidates had been selected under the

general turn and the rest from turn 165 to 190 by communal reservation.

For the third category, 8 candidates had been selected from general turn in

the list from turn Nos. 191 onwards. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out

that after the interview and final selection, a different method had been

adopted and meritorious candidates in all the three categories had been

omitted.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

25. He specifically pointed out that a candidate by name

S.Nagarajan, who belonged to BC and had secured 83.75 marks must have

been included in the general turn, but however since he was accommodated

in the BC category, a meritorious candidate in the BC category was not

selected.

26. With respect to the reservation for in service candidates of 20%

for a total number of 123 posts, for MBC category wherein 25 candidates

should have been selected, only 24 candidates were selected again leading

to a deserving candidate from MBC being denied opportunity. Learned

Senior Counsel further argued that under the GT, 38 candidates alone

should have been selected, but 39 candidates had been selected and by this

inclusion of one further candidate under GT, a deserving candidate under

the BC community had been denied the opportunity of being selected.

27. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that if the 1:5 ratio had

been followed, then 615 meritorious candidates alone should have been sent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

for physical efficiency test but an additional 28 candidates had been sent

and 8 of them had been selected. He very specifically argued that with

respect to the 30% reservation for women candidates less number of

meritorious women candidates have been selected. He gave the instance of

Selva Lakshmi with registration No. 8750053, who had secured 78 marks

and had been selected under the open quota but candidates, who had

secured over and above 78 marks had been selected under the communal

reservation, namely, BC/BCM/MBC/SC/ST/SCA. Learned Senior Counsel

pointed out that if those candidates, who had secured high marks had been

included in the general quota then meritorious candidates under each

category or community would have been selected. The learned Senior

Counsel therefore argued that the entire selection process under the Revised

Selection List would have to be set aside by this Court.

28. Ms. Dakshayani Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, who was

instructed to argue in W.P.No. 31325 of 2024 pointed out that in the

Revised Provisional List, 30% reservation for women candidates had not

been provided under the 20% Departmental Quota. The petitioner in that

Writ Petition was an inservice candidate and had applied under the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Departmental Quota. The petitioner was selected in the original list under

GTW. Learned Senior Counsel contended that two candidates Dhivya.A

with enrollment No. 8050020, under the BC community and Pandi

Ammal.A with enrollment No. 8050085, under the MBC community and

who had secured 83 and 82.7 marks respectively, which was more than the

cut of marks off 81.75 fixed for the open category, were included under the

30% reservation for women. Since they had been included under the 30%

reservation for women, the writ petitioner stood ousted. It had been

contended that the respondents had granted 30% reservation for women and

had retained the entire remainder 70% exclusively for male candidates

without including any women though they had secured more marks then

male candidates.

29. With respect to the departmental quota, learned Senior Counsel

contended that the total vacancy was 123 and 30% reservation should have

been given under that particular quota and 37 candidates should have been

selected but only 30 candidates had been selected. The learned Senior

Counsel placed reliance on Section 26(2) of the Tamil Nadu Government

Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016 wherein it had been provided

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

that a minimum of 30% of all vacancies in direct recruitment must be set

apart for women. Further, women candidates also have a right to compete

with the male candidates under the balance 70% and cannot be ousted if

they had secured high marks. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed

out that under the general turn for women, three women should have been

selected but only two were selected and for SC(W), two women were

selected instead of one.

30. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that in W.P.No. 32200 of

2024, the petitioner G.G.Vishnupriya, had been selected under the sports

quota in the first list. In the second list, the petitioner was declared as non

selected. The learned Senior Counsel assailed the non selection of the

petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further questioned the selection of

another candidate Kavipriya, who was a departmental candidate and was

able to creep into the second list under the PSTM category, though she had

been selected under the PSTM category, when she was originally selected in

the police force. Learned Senior Counsel asserted that this particular

opportunity to be considered as a PSTM candidate can be availed only once

and in one selection process alone and not the next time. If Kavipriya had

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

been correctly declared as unsuccessful, the petitioner in W.P.No. 32200 of

2024 would have been automatically selected.

31. The learned Senior Counsel was emphatic in her submission that

the Revised Selection List should be set aside.

32. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel in W.P.No. 33238 of 2024 pointed

out that the petitioner therein had been selected when the results were

published in the first instance. He had secured a total of 81.50 marks under

the general turn and belonged to BC community and had been allotted to the

Tamil Nadu Special Police. When the revised list was published, the

petitioner was declared not selected. The learned counsel pointed out that

one of the selected candidates, who had not been selected earlier,

Ramasamy, who had obtained 78.25 marks and was selected under the

sports quota and R.Karthik, who had secured 76.25 marks had been shown

as selected, whereas for BC PSTM, the minimum mark cut off was 81 and

for sports quota the minimum cut off was 81.50. The learned counsel

asserted that the selection of these two candidates, Ramasamy and

R.Karhtick had directly affected the petitioner herein, who had secured

higher marks in the written test, in the physical endurance test and in the

special marks and in the viva voce. He contended that the inclusion of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Ramasamy and R.Karthick and the exclusion of the petitioner was

questionable.

33. The learned counsel also argued that in W.P.No. 34453 of 2024,

the petitioner Jasmine Nisha. A, had applied under the BC Muslim category

in the open candidates quota. She had been selected in the initial list. But

however, in the revised list the community of another candidate had been

altered to enable that candidate to be selected. The petitioner was ousted.

The learned counsel pointed out the specific case of Vinodhini @ Anisha

Fathima, who had converted to Islam and therefore claimed under

BC(M)(W) whereas in the first list, she had been categorised only as BCW

candidate. She later migrated from BCW to BC(M)(W) and the petitioner

stood ousted. The petitioner was a born Muslim and had practiced that

religion right through her life but was ousted by a candidate, who had

converted to Islam and certificate to that aspect had been accepted after the

publication of the first provisional list. The certificates relating to

conversion had not been submitted by that candidate when she had applied

for the post. The learned counsel argued that this Court should strike out the

Revised Provisional List and include the writ petitioner in the selected list.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

34. Mr. M.A.Gouthaman, learned counsel in W.P.No. 35593 of 2024,

who argued on behalf of the candidate N.Kokila stated that the writ

petitioner had been selected under the sports quota in the first list.

Thereafter, she had been omitted in the second list. In the first list, it was

declared that she had obtained a total mark of 72 and was selected under

BCW category. In the second list however she was not selected.

35. The learned counsel pointed out the instance of Navaskan . Y,

under the BC category and who had been granted weightage mark of 54

under BCM. In the earlier list, he had been shown as BC(M) PSTM.

Pointing out this discrepancy, the learned counsel argued that the revised

list had been prepared with intention to include undeserving candidates and

to exclude deserving candidates.

36. Mr. Harshavarthan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in

W.P.No. 31809 of 2024 pointed out that the writ petitioner A.Arunkumar

had applied under MBC PSTM category and was included in the initial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

provisional list but omitted in the Revised Provisional List. The learned

counsel stated that the reservation under PSTM could be availed only once

but the respondents had granted such reservation to inservice candidates,

who had earlier been granted that particular reservation when they were

initially selected as Constables. The learned counsel argued that this was

violative of the Rules and more particularly of G.O.Ms.No. 234 dated

13.05.2023 which provided that PSTM reservation can be availed only once

by a direct recruit.

37. Mr.C.D.Johnson, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.

32215 of 2024, B.Shahira Banu stated that the petitioner had been selected

under the BC(M)(W) PSTM in the first list. She had been earlier selected as

Grade-II police constable. She was a first time graduate in the family and

had studied her entire education through Tamil medium. She had obtained a

total of 67.75 marks and was appointed to the Taluk category. She was the

only candidate under BC (M)(W) and PSTM category. However, in the

second list, she stood ousted. The learned counsel vehemently argued that

she had been robbed of her selection by another candidate Yasmin, who had

applied under the name Lakshmi and was not selected in the first list and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

thereafter had submitted certificates that she was a Muslim convert and was

therefore selected as BC (M)(W) candidate in the second list. The

certificates relating to conversion were given after Lakshmi was called for

the physical test. The learned counsel argued that the said certificate should

have been submitted when applying for the post and not later. She could

have converted to Islam but the certificate in that regard should have been

uploaded at the time when applying for the post and not introduced at a later

stage, after the results had been declared. The learned counsel therefore

asserted that the Revised Provisional List must be rejected by this Court and

the petitioner must be declared as selected.

38. Ms.S.Meenakshi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in

W.P.No. 33853 of 2024 pointed out that the writ petitioners

K.Tamizhselvan and Venkatesh were employed as Grade -II Trafic

Constable and Grade-I Constable respectively and had competed for the 123

vacancies under Departmental Quota. Learned counsel stated that they had

obtained 79.25 marks and 79.00 marks respectively. Learned counsel

pointed out that when the revised list was published, it was found that in the

General Turn category, the last two candidates had obtained 80.25 and the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

last but four candidates had obtained 81.00 marks. The first six candidates

in the SC category had obtained 83, 83, 82.50, 81.50, 81.25 and 81.25

marks respectively which were higher then the last six candidates under the

General Turn category. The learned counsel therefore argued that those

candidates who were included in the Scheduled Caste category should have

been included under the General Turn. If that had been done, the

petitioners, who had obtained 79.25 and 79 marks would have been selected

under the Schedule Caste category.

39. The learned counsel argued that the selection was in direct

violation of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2021)

4 SCC 686 [ State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. K.Shobana and Others]

wherein the Supreme Court had very clearly stated that meritorious

candidates belonged to any community must be included only in the General

Turn to afford opportunity to others in those categories to also be selected.

40. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel, who argued with respect

to the case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 31876 of 2024 and 32229 of 2024

also pointed out that the petitioners therein had been initially selected but

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

later omitted in the second list. The learned counsel pointed out that the

petitioner in W.P.No. 31876 of 2024, K.Syed Sulthan Ibrahim and the

petitioner in W.P.No. 32229 of 2024, R.Prabhakaran had been initially

selected but later their names were not found when the revised list was

published. The learned counsel pointed out that M.Shafee with registration

No.1150081 belonging to BC Muslim had obtained 82.5 marks and should

have been included in the General Turn, but was selected as BC Muslim

male candidate and thereby another BC Muslim male candidate was

deprived of his chance of being selected. If he had been included in the

General Turn, the petitioner in W.P.No. 31876 of 2024 would have been

selected under BC Muslim male candidate but was ousted.

41. With respect to the petitioner in W.P.No. 32229 of 2024 the

learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner, belonged to SC community

and had obtained 68.5 marks and should have been included under the SC

community category. M.Sathiyamoorthy another SC candidate with

registration No.115117, who had secured 83 marks should have been

included under the General Turn, but was included under the SC category

thereby ousting the petitioner. The learned counsel further pointed out that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

another candidate belonging to the BC community S.Livingsingh

Divakaran with registration No.4850088, who had secured 80.75 marks was

included in the General Turn but M.Sathiyamoorthy, who had obtained 83

marks and belonged to SC community was not included in the General Turn

but included under the SC community. The learned counsel therefore

assailed the entire Revised Provisional List and claimed it should be struck

down.

42. Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners in

W.P.No. 32176 of 2024 and W.P.No.32180 of 2024 pointed out that

Tamilarasan. K, Vinoth. S, Sathiyamoorthy.C and P.Priya, the petitioners in

W.P.No. 32176 of 2024 and R.Surya, Aiswarya.V, Ramachandran.A and

Hariharan.G, the petitioners in W.P.No. 32180 of 2024 were all included in

the initial provisional list but omitted in the Revised Provisional List. The

learned counsel argued that in the Revised List, Tamilarasan. K was

disqualified under the viva voce and P.Priya was disqualified under

physical endurance test. He stated that the cut off mark for each round of

selection for each communal category was never published. Similarly,

among the petitioners in W.P.No. 32180 of 2024, though all the four

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

petitioners were initially selected, it was held out in the Revised List that

they were not selected but the reasons were not given. It was contended

that they were not selected only to include undeserving candidates. The

learned counsel pointed out that PSTM could be availed only once and

cannot be availed in a second selection. The learned counsel assailed the

Revised Selection List and claimed that in the Revised list for BC (Male),

the number of vacancies had been reduced from 4 to 3. He argued that the

Revised Provisional List should be struck down by this Court.

43. Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.

28656 of 2024 argued that the writ petitioner M.Govindarasu had applied

for the post of Station Officer under inservice quota of 20% and had

obtained 78.50 marks. He pointed out that the total number of vacancies for

the post of Station Officer was 129 out of which 20% would indicate 26

seats for inservice candidates. Out of the 26 seats, 8 seats should have been

given for OC and four for SC. On the other hand, the respondents had

allotted 7 seats for OC and increased the number of seats for SC

Community. This had directly affected the prospects of the petitioner, who

stood ousted. The learned counsel therefore argued that the Provisional List

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

was wrongly prepared and should be interfered with and the petitioner must

be declared as having been selected.

The Arguments -Respondents:

44. Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General in his

arguments, first pointed out the order of this Court permitting the

respondents to redo the entire exercise from the stage of the written

examination. This would indicate that the respondents were permitted to

once again conduct the physical endurance test, the viva voce and thereafter,

publish the Revised List. The learned Additional Advocate General stated

that in the earlier occasion, it had been asserted by the writ petitioners

therein that the merit list had not been initially drawn up and that the

reservation had not been properly applied to the selection. The learned

Additional Advocate General stated that the said lacuna had been corrected.

45. With respect to the allegation that 30% women quota, was not

provided for the Tamil Nadu Special Police, the learned Additional

Advocate General stated that it was a policy decision and hastened to add

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

that it did not imply that women candidates would not be accommodated

under the Tamil Nadu Special Police but they would have to compete on

equal terms with the male candidates. He pointed out that this challenge

was not made at the time when the notification was issued and had been

raised after the publication of the result.

46. With respect to the grant of reservation of 20% for PSTM, the

learned Additional Advocate General stated that the respondents had taken a

decision that if any of the in-service candidates, namely, those who were

already serving as Grade-I or Grade-II Police Constables had put in less

than five years of service, then they would be eligible to again apply for

recruitment under PSTM category. He pointed out that the notification

stipulated that PSTM reservation would be granted at every stage of the

selection and therefore stated that if a candidate had studied under Tamil

medium he/she should not be ousted.

47. The learned Additional Advocate General argued that the 200

point roster had been followed in letter and spirit. There had been no

deviation from the guidelines stipulated. He also stated that the cut off

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

marks had been determined for each category and in the General Turn, the

candidates had been correctly incorporated by determining the last mark of

each candidate in each category. With respect to the arguments advanced

relating to individual candidates and their selection which according to the

petitioners were in violation of established principles, the learned

Additional Advocate General stated that the right to question such selection

would accrue only when appointment orders were actually issued. The

respondents have only published the Provisional Selection List in

accordance with the directions of this Court and it was therefore argued that

the issues relating to individual candidates cannot be raised at this juncture.

48. The learned Additional Advocate General asserted that the list

had been published after due consideration of all factors and purely on merit

and following the 200 point roster without any deviation. He denied

allegations of mala fide or allegations that candidates had been wrongfully

included in the list. He stated that the challenges made in the Writ Petition

were devoid of merits and should be rejected by this Court.

49. Ms.Kavitha Rameswar, learned counsel, who had filed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

W.M.P.No. 1441 of 2025 impleading application on behalf of one of the

candidate Yasmin whose selection had been questioned, stated that during

the second certificate verification, the petitioner had forwarded her

certificates as BC(M)(W)(PSTM). It was contended that the petitioner had

converted to Islam nearly a decade back after following due procedure but

when applying for the post, she had to apply under the name which was

found in her Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate and therefore,

she had applied under the name Lakshmi. Later when there was a second

certificate verification, she had forwarded the certificates showing proof of

conversion to Islam and also that she had studied through Tamil medium

and that therefore, learned counsel asserted that she was lawfully eligible to

be selected under BC Muslim Women PSTM category. The learned counsel

therefore rejected allegations raised against the petitioner by the writ

petitioners.

The Arguments-in Reply:

50. Reply arguments were advanced by the learned Senior Counsels/

Counsels again asserting that the Revised Provisional List put up by the

respondents will necessarily have to be struck down by this Court. They

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

again asserted that the Writ Petitions should be allowed and the petitioners

should be declared as selected.

The Points Crystallised:-

51. While analysing the available records and the arguments

advanced the following points broadly arise for determination:-

(1) Whether the Revised List withstands the dictum laid down in

(2021) 4 SCC 686 [ State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. K.Shobana and

Others]?;

(2) Whether inservice candidates were entitled to avail PSTM

reservation once over?;

(3) Whether the directions of the learned Single Judge dated

21.06.2024 in the earlier round of litigation permitting the respondents to

redo the exercise of short listing the candidates granted a right to any of the

candidates to submit fresh certificates to be considered to their advantage?;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

and

(4) Whether the decision of the respondents not to grant 30%

reservation for women in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate

Service is justiciable?.

The Points Discussed and Determined:

Point No.1:

52. The first point to be taken up for consideration is whether the

Revised Provisional List is in accordance with the law laid down in (2021)

4 SCC 686 [ State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. K.Shobana and Others].

53. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with a

Notification issued on 12.06.2019 by the Teachers Recruitment Board

inviting applications online from eligible candidates for direct recruitment

to the post of Post Graduate Assistants and Physical Education Directors,

Grade-I in School Education and other Departments for the year 2018-2019.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

54. Two issues had been taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The first one was with respect to the principles to be applied for filling up

the back log vacancy. The second was whether meritorious candidates

would take their place in the general merit list or whether reservation would

apply and they would be fitted in the specific reserved category. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly and categorically given the manner and

the steps which had to be taken to fill up the vacancies. They placed reliance

on an earlier pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

2021 4 SCC 542 [Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Ors]. The steps have been given as follows:-

(i) The general merit list to be first filled;

(ii) the backlog vacancies of the particular reserved category to be

thereafter filled in first; and

(iii) the remaining reserved vacancies for the current year to be filled

thereafter.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

55. In the instant case, specific instances have been raised when

meritorious candidates in the reserved category have not been fitted in the

General Turn but rather fitted in the specific reserved category list and

thereby ousting other candidates from the reserved category. The

respondents by adopting this method have defeated the very purpose and

object of providing reservation, namely, to uplift those in need.

56. The petitioners have cited specific instances in this regard.

57. M.Shafee with registration No.1150081, belonging to Schedule

Caste Muslim had obtained 82.5 marks. It is alleged that he should have

been included in the General Turn. If he had been so included, then the

petitioner in W.P.No. 31876 of 2024, K.Syed Sulthan Ibrahim would have

been selected under BC Muslim male candidate. By not adopting the

principles laid down in Shobana (referred supra), the respondents have

denied selection being granted to one BC Muslim male candidate thereby

denying him the opportunity of serving as Sub Inspector of Police.

58. M.Sathiyamoorthy, who belongs to Schedule Caste community

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

with registration No.115117 had secured 83 marks and should have been

included in the General Turn and given way for the filling up of another

Schedule Caste candidate under the specific reserved category.

M.Sathiyamoorthy was however included in the Schedule Caste Reserved

list and therefore, the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 32229 of 2024 stood

ousted. The respondents have thus denied an opportunity to a Schedule

Caste candidate to be selected and thereby have defeated the very basic

principle of reservation, namely, to grant opportunity to deserving Schedule

Caste candidates.

59. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 33853 of 2024

had pointed out that the six candidates selected under the Schedule Caste

Category had obtained, 83, 83, 82.50, 81.50, 81.25 and 81.25 marks

respectively which were higher then the marks obtained by the last six

candidates under the General Turn. It had been forcefully argued that these

six candidates should have been included in the General Turn. The writ

petitioners in W.P.No. 33853 of 2024 K.Tamilzhselvan and Venkatesh, who

both belonged to Schedule Caste community and had obtained 79.25 marks

and 79 marks would then have got selected under that particular specific

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

reservation.

60. This allegation had not been denied or disputed by the

respondents. Thus by including six Schedule Caste candidates in the

Schedule Caste Reserved list and not in the General Turn, even though they

had obtained more marks than the last six candidates in the General Turn,

the respondents have denied opportunity to six Schedule Caste candidates to

be selected and discharge duties in as Sub Inspectors of Police. Again the

respondents have violated the spirit behind the principles of reservation.

61. It is also seen that two candidates Divya.A with enrollment No.

8050020 and Pandiammal.A with enrollment No. 8050083, who both

belonged to Most Backward Class community had secured 83 and 82.7

marks which was more than the cut off mark for Open Candidates, which

was 81.75 for male candidates. They should have been included in the

General Turn but were included under the 30% reservation for women and

thereby two other women candidates have been ousted from being

considered for selection.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

62. It would be poor argument if the respondents were to contend

that 30% reservation for women would conversely meant that the entire

remainder 70% is exclusively reserved for male candidates. Meritorious

women candidates should also be fitted in the General Turn and the General

Turn cannot be restrained only to male candidates.

63. Again, another candidate S.Nagarajan, who belongs to that

Backward Class community and had scored 83.75 marks should have been

included in the General Turn since he had obtained more marks than the last

candidate fitted in the General Turn. By including him in the Most

Backward Class community category, the respondents have denied

opportunity to a Most Backward Class Community candidate.

64. The above instances very clearly show that the law laid down in

(2021) 4 SCC 686 [ State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. K.Shobana and

Others] had been directly and probably deliberately violated and not

followed. There is malice in ousting deserving candidates to uplift whom

the policy of reservation is in force. The respondents cannot take shelter

behind ignorance of a law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Revised Provisional List will have to be interfered with and struck down by

this Court.

Point No.2:

65. This point surrounds examination of an issue whether in service

candidates could avail PSTM reservation after having availed the same

when they were initially selected in the police force as Grade-II Police

Constables.

67. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that if

inservice candidate had put in less than five years of experience as Grade-II

or Grade-I Police Constables then such candidate could avail reservation

meant for Persons had Studied in Tamil Medium a second time over when

they applied for a public post.

68. Specific instance had been cited by the petitioners of inservice

candidates, who had availed PSTM reservation when they were initially

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

selected as Police Constables, availing the same once again.

69. To state just one instance, P.Kavi Priya with Enrollment No.

6800158 was already working as Police Constable was selected again under

the PSTM category.

70. In this connection, reference was made to the Tamil Nadu

(Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State of

Persons Studied in Tamil Medium) Ordinance, 2010 (Tamil Nadu Act

40/2010) and G.O.Ms.No. 145 Personnel and Administrative Reforms

Department dated 30.09.2010. Even prior to the introduction of the

legislation, the Government had passed Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.3/2010

by G.O.Ms.No. 145 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department

dated 30.09.2010 wherein the term 'direct recruitment' had been defined as

follows:-

“(a) “direct recruitment” means first appointment of a person to any service under the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

State in accordance with the rules or regulations or orders in force;”

71. It is thus evidently clear that it would apply only to the first

appointment to any service. This would exclude an application made

second time around. Candidates who had earlier availed of the benefit of

being selected as Constables under the PSTM category can never and

should never have been granted that particular reservation when they had

again applied as inservice candidates for the post of Sub Inspector of Police.

By including them, a candidate who had also studied in Tamil Medium had

been denied opportunity when that candidate had applied for the first time

for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Thus, the Revised Provisional

Selection List again has to be set aside on the ground that inservice

candidates, who had already obtained reservation under PSTM category

were permitted to again avail the same.

Point No.3:

72. The third point has brought up certain interesting facts to light. It

is with reference to two candidates, who were not selected in the first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

provisional list, but who had been subsequently included in the second

provisional list.

73. The writ petitioner in W.P.No. 34453 of 2024 Jasmine Nisha.A,

daughter of Abdul Rahim had contended that she had been selected in the

First Provisional List in Serial No.205. Later when the Second Provisional

List was published, she was shown as not selected. Very specifically, she

stated that Ms.Vinothini with enrollment No. 7450003 had obtained 66

marks. It had been alleged that her name was then given as Vinothini.T @

Anish Fathima, which was not reflected in the first list. Her community had

been changed and when the second list was published, she was categorised

as BC Muslim. Consequently, M.Dariya with enrollment No.5104679, who

had applied under both departmental and open quota and who was earlier

selected under the departmental quota was shifted to the open quota and the

writ petitioner, Jasmine Nisha.A was ousted. It is very specifically alleged

in the Writ Petition that the respondents had played a game of checkers in

order to oust the petitioner. They first changed the community of Vinothini

and categorised her as Vinothini.T @ Anish Fathima and brought her within

the zone of selection and shifted Dariya from departmental quota to the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

open quota and ousted the petitioner, who had earlier been selected under

the open quota. The petitioner had got more marks than Vinothini.T @

Anish Fathima. It had been very specifically alleged that this shuffling was

done to specifically include Vinothini.T @ Anish Fathima and to exclude

the petitioner from the selection list. It had been further contended that

even if it is the case of the respondents that Vinothini.T @ Anish Fathima

had converted her religion from Hindu to Islam, she could not have taken

the place of a BC Muslim women candidate after the first provisional list

had been published and therefore she should have been treated as open

candidate.

74. The second candidate whose selection had been questioned in

W.P.No. 32215 of 2024 filed by B.Shahira Banu is that of R.Yashmin. The

selected candidate R.Yashmin has filed W.M.P.No. 10937 of 2025 to

implead herself and to be granted an opportunity of being heard. In her

affidavit, she stated that she is already working as Grade-I Police Constable

and had studied in Tamil medium right through her school and in her

graduation. She further stated that even prior to her marriage, she had

converted to Islam and had changed her name from R.Lakshmi to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

R.Yashmin. This change of name had also been registered in the Tamilnadu

Government Gazette in the year 2012. She had been appointed as Grade-II

Police Constable on 01.02.2011 under the name R.Lakshmi. Thereafter, the

recruitment notification had been issued on 05.05.2023 inviting applications

for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. She had submitted her application.

She had applied under MBC/DNC-PSTM category. She had given the name

as given in her school certificate, namely, R.Lakshmi when submitting the

application. Thereafter pursuant to the interim order, she was called for

physical test on 07.08.2024. She submitted her representation before the

third respondent and produced certificates including the community

certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Sivagiri in Tenkasi, who

had issued a certificate on 06.05.2024. Consequently, she was then selected

under the name R.Yashmin as Backward Class Muslim Woman PSTM

category. She contended that the respondents had correctly received the

certificates and no preference was shown to her.

75. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 32215 of

2024 however contended that the writ petitioner/ B.Shahira Banu had been

initially selected under the Backward Class Muslim Woman PSTM category

and later stood ousted on the basis of the certificates produced by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

R.Lakshmi midway through the selection process. The said candidate had

been selected under the category Backward Class Muslim Woman PSTM

category with the name R.Yashmin.

76. It is clear that acceptance of the certificates midway through the

selection process had directly affected the selection of the writ petitioner in

W.P.No. 32215 of 2024 and had not provided a level playing field for the

candidates. The selection of R.Yashmin certainly calls for interference as at

the time when she applied on the basis of the notification, she had not

applied under the Backward Class Muslim Woman category and therefore,

she could never have been considered under that particular category in this

recruitment process. She could avail that particular reservation in a

subsequent recruitment process if she fills the application form as

R.Yashmin and claims reservation under Backward Class Woman PSTM

category.

77. It is thus evident that the Revised Provisional Selection List

issued on 03.10.2024 has to be set aside owing to the unlawful inclusion of

the aforementioned two candidates under the Backward Class Muslim

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Woman Category when they had never applied under the said category in

the initial stage.

Point No.4:

78. The fourth point under consideration is the issue raised about the

decision of the respondents not to grant 30% reservation among the selected

candidates allotted to Tamilnadu Special Police. In the notification, it had

been very clearly stated that there are 110 vacancies in the Tamilnadu

Special Police Subordinate Services but special reservation of 30% had not

been granted to women candidates. With respect to reservation for women,

it had been stated that out of the total vacancies for Taluk and Armed

Reserve, 30% will be allotted for women candidates. If eligible women

candidates were not eligible for selection, their vacancy will be filled up by

the men candidates of the same category. There was no specific reservation

for women candidates under the Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate

Service.

79. It had been very strongly argued by Ms. Dakshayani Reddy,

learned Senior Counsel that this has caused serious prejudice to women

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

candidates who should have been considered for selection in the Tamil

Nadu Special Police Category. It had been further argued that 30%

reservation had also not been provided for Departmental candidates out of

the notified 123 vacancies and there was 100% restriction of women in the

selection of Tamilnadu Special Police.

80. It is seen that Section 26(2) of the Tamilnadu Government

Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 provides for a minimum of 30%

of all vacancies which to be filled through direct recruitment, shall be set

apart for women candidates. Further Rule 3(a)(i) read with Annexure-I of

the Special Rules for Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Services provides 30%

reservation for women to the post of Sub Inspector of Police under the 20%

departmental candidates.

81. The respondents have placed reliance of G.O.Ms. No. 690 Home

(Police-3/Department) dated 28.10.2011 and stated that Tamilnadu Special

Police (TSP) is exempted from reservation for women. The writ petitioner

in W.P.No. 31325 of 2024 had raised this issue stating that though she was

selected in the initial Selection List, she stood ousted in the Revised

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Selection List. It had been contended that the respondents have violated the

fundamental right of equality before law, equal protection of law and equal

opportunity in public employment.

82. The relief sought in W.P.No. 31325 of 2024 was to call for the

records relating to the Provisional Selection List published in the year 2020

and quash the same and direct implementation of 30% reservation for

women in the selection process. The petitioner had applied for the post and

was shown selected when the first Provisional List was published. She was

quite comfortable with the fact that she had been selected in spite of specific

reservation not being provided under the Tamilnadu Special Police

Category. However, when the Revised List was published, she found that

she stood ousted and then this particular ground had been taken. This

ground could be addressed by the Court had the petitioner taken it up as an

issue in the earlier round of litigation. At the time when the learned Single

Judge had directed that the respondents should re-do the selection process,

the issue was not urged. Now, having gone through the Selection Process, it

would be upsetting the cart if the recruitment notification itself were to be

set aside. Therefore, without entering into any further discussion, I hold that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

since this challenge had been taken after the selection process had been

concluded and not at the initial stage when the selection process opened up,

I would not upset the notification on this ground.

Conclusion:

83. The discussion above leads to the following conclusions:

(1) the Revised Provisional Selection List published on 03.10.2024 is

set aside;

(2) The respondents will have to rework the entire selection process

following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2021) 4 SCC 686

[ State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. K.Shobana and Others] and strictly

follow the three steps laid therein, namely,

(i) Step 1: To first fill the 31% merit list on the basis of total marks

obtained irrespective of caste, community or religion;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

(ii) Step 2: Fill the back log vacancies with the merit list for the

particular community first;

(iii) Step 3: apply the reservation for other communities

(3) Care must be taken that meritorious reserved candidates are fitted

in the General Turn and thereby provide opportunity for the reserved

candidates in the reserved list.

(4) Certificates introduced midway through the selection process or

after the earlier order passed by this Court should be rejected and the

candidate should be categorised in accordance with the details given by

them in the application form and no other fresh certificate should be taken

into consideration.

(5) Care should also be taken that PSTM reservation is applied only

once while applying for a public post and not for a second time. If any of

the departmental candidates had already been selected under the PSTM

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

reservation, they cannot be considered under PSTM reservation under this

notification.

84. This Court appoints Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar,

Former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court to Monitor the

selection and to supervise the fitment of candidates on the basis of the

materials already available in the written examination and the marks in the

physical endureance test and the marks in the viva voce.

85. The respondents are directed to nominate a Nodal Officer in the

cadre of Superintendent of Police, to assist the Hon'ble Judge appointed by

this Court. The respondents are further directed to provide access to all

records relating to the recruitment process to the Hon'ble Judge now

appointed by this Court and also provide necessary and adequate secretarial

staff as required and an office base to complete the process of fitment of the

candidates from the stage after physical measurement test, endurance test,

physical efficiency test and viva-voce had been done consequent to the

order dated 21.06.2024 in W.P.No. 11855 of 2024 batch.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

86. The Hon'ble Judge is at liberty to include any other staff/official

to assist him in the discharge of this onerous task.

87. The Revised Selection List shall be presented before the Director

General of Police/ Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment

Board, Chennai, who shall publish the same.

88. The respondents are directed to pay an initial remuneration of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Paul

Vasanthakumar and also pay any further remuneration as determined by the

Hon'ble Judge. The respondents are also directed to bear the transport and

other incidental expenses of the Hon'ble Judge and of all the members of his

team.

89. The entire exercise by the Hon'ble Judge shall be completed

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order.

90. In view of the aforementioned orders, the petitions seeking to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

implead are allowed. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment

in the cause title before issuing the order copy.

91. The Writ Petitions stand allowed. The Revised Provisional

Selection List dated 08.10.2024 and the consequential proceedings are set

aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. No

order as to costs.

22.04.2025

vsg (1/8)
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order

1. The Director General of Police/Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

2. The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex
Pantheon Road

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

3. The Secretary to Government
Home (Pol.II) Department
Secretariat, Fort St. George
Chennai -9.

4. The Director General of Police
and Head of Police Force
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Maylapore, Chennai -4.

5. The Director General of Police/Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Board
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

6. The Superintendent of Police
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

7. Additional Chief Secretary
The State of Tamil Nadu
Home (Police) Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

8. Secretary to the Government
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Ministry of Home Department
Saint George Fort, Chennai.

9. The Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Home (Police) Department
Secretariat
Fort St. George

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

Chennai – 600 009.

10. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. .

11. The Director General of Police
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.

12. The Secretary to Government
Human Resources Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

13. The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Home Department
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.

14. The Inspector General of Police/Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Represented by Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

15. The Director General of Police/Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Complex Pantheon Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,

vsg

Pre-Delivery Order made in

W.P.Nos. 32347, 28656, 32229, 31876. 33853, 33238, 31325, 32143, 32200, 32215, 34453, 35593, 31809, 32201, 32417, 32180 & 32176 of

And

And W.M.P.Nos. 35129, 35131, 31258, 35008, 36670, 36026, 33979, 33981, 34910, 34967, 34968, 34990, 34991, 37336, 38464, 38465, 34575, 34971, 34972, 35201, 34940 & 34933 of 2024 And

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )

22.04.2025

(1/8)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 06:14:31 pm )