Madras High Court
M.Sakkaraichamy vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 25 April, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
REV.APLC(MD)No.17 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 25.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
REV.APLC(MD)No.17 of 2022
M.Sakkaraichamy ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
represented by its Secretary,
No.3, Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C.Nagar, Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Personal and Administration Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w 114
of CPC to review the order passed by this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1073 of
2020, dated 27.04.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jeyasankar
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 11:27:15 am )
REV.APLC(MD)No.17 of 2022
ORDER
The Review Petitioner herein has filed a Writ Petition in the nature
of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the communication, dated
17.12.2013 on the file of the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission and subsequently to quash the same as illegal and appoint
the petitioner in the post of Assistant in Revenue Department.
2.The case of the Review Petitioner is that he, on completion of
B.E. Course in Mechanical Engineering in the year 1999, participated in
the process of selection for the appointment to the posts notified under
Advertisement No.219, dated 15.11.2009 under Combined Subordinate
Services Examination-I in the Tamil Nadu Government. He also opted
for the post of Assistant in the Revenue Department for which the
prescribed educational qualification is a degree of B.A. or B.Sc., (other
than in professional subject) or B.Com of any University or institution
recognised by University Grants Commission. While so, taking into
consideration certain clarifications in different context and when
clarification under RTI Act was obtained, the Review Petitioner wants to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 11:27:15 am )
treat his B.E. Professional degree on par with the degree in Humanitarian
science.
3.The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions
made by the Review Petitioner, disposed of the Writ Petition stating that
B.E. degree is not a qualification for the post of appointment, as per the
recruitment notification issued by TNPSC, since degree holder in
professional subjects are excluded in the notification inviting
applications for the post of Assistant in Revenue Department. However,
the learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the
professional degree need not be excluded from participating in the
selection process for the post of Assistant in Revenue Department and
had directed the Principal Secretary to the Government, Personal and
Administration Reforms Department, to revise the rules in relation to
selection and appointment to the various posts more specifically for the
post under Group-III and Group-IV service as well as basic service
prescribing minimum and maximum qualification in consonance with the
concept of level playing field enabling the suitable candidates to secure
public appointment by participating in the open competitive process.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 11:27:15 am )
4.Being aggrieved by the disposal of the Writ Petition with the
aforesaid directions, the Review Petitioner has preferred an appeal in
W.A.(MD)No.1073 of 2020, which was heard by a Division Bench of
this Court and was dismissed on 27.04.2021. While dismissing the Writ
Appeal, the Division Bench has made it clear that the G.O.(Ms)No.138,
Personal and Administration Reforms Department, dated 29.12.1997,
enabling the degree holders in professional course like, B.E., M.B.B.S.,
and B.V.Sc., to apply for B.L/L.L.B., course will not apply to the case in
hand, since it is for a recruitment to a particular post with particular
educational qualification and with specific exclusion of professional
degree holders.
5.Not satisfied with the order of dismissal, the Review Petitioner
has taken out a Review Application (MD)No.91 of 2021 raising certain
grounds to review the earlier judgment. The Division Bench vide order,
dated 20.12.2021 considered that the Review Petition is filed by a
different set of Counsel and referring the judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Boad and another vs Raju
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 11:27:15 am )
Reddiar and another, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736, disposed of the
Review Petition preserving the right to the Review Petitioner to prefer a
Review Petition through the Counsel, who appeared on his behalf in the
Writ Appeal. As a consequence, the present Review Petition is filed
through his Counsel by name, P.Jeyasankar (Enrol No.681/2011).
6.In the present Review Petition, it is contended that the Division
Bench has wrongly referred the Government Order number as 138
instead of 318. The observation of the Division Bench that
appellant/Review Petitioner had not achieved the bench mark
qualification is not relevant to the case on hand, since his application was
rejected for want of educational qualification or in otherwise, for
possessing a degree in professional course and not for clearing the
minimum bench mark qualification.
7.This Court find that wrong mentioning of the Government Order
no way prejudiced the case of the Review Petitioner, since the content of
the Government order is well understood and decided by the Division
Bench distinguishing the G.O(Ms)No.318 of Personal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 11:27:15 am )
Administration Reforms Department, and that cannot be telescoped to the
notification issued by the TNPSC for selection to the post of Assistant in
the Revenue Department. Like wise, failure to clear the bench mark
qualification is only an additional reason for the Court to decline the
relief sought and satisfied itself that even otherwise, the case of the
Review Petitioner is hopelessly devoid of merits. It is unfortunate that
the Review Petitioner has been totally misdirected and misconceived the
law, which has forced him to file a Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and two
Review Applications. When the notification for the selection process is
specific that degree holders in professional course are excluded in
participating in the selection for the post of Assistant in the Revenue
Department, the Writ Petition filed five years after the notification after
participating in the selection process challenging the eligibility condition
is against the settled principle of law.
8.The learned Single Judge after considering the merits of the case
has directed the Government to revisit the rules and it is open for the
Government to take a policy decision regarding the eligibility condition.
The Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of Constitution of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 11:27:15 am )
India cannot dictate the Government to take a policy decision in a
particular manner. Hence, the Review Petition stands dismissed.
However, no order as to costs.
(G.J., J.) (R.P, J.)
25.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
cmr
To
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
No.3, Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C.Nagar, Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Personal and Administration Reforms Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 11:27:15 am )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
cmr
25.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/05/2025 11:27:15 am )
