Madras High Court
M.Kalaiyarasi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 January, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD)No.1815 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.1815 of 2025
and WMP(MD).Nos.1310 & 1311 of 2025
M.Kalaiyarasi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road, Park Town
Chennai 600 003
2.The Controller of the Examination
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road
Park Town
Chennai 600 003 .....Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining
to the impugned order of the first respondent dated 09.04.2024, quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner under PSTM
category for the next stage of selection to the posts mentioned in Notification No.
3/2022 dated 23.02.2022.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1815 of 2025
For Petitioner : M/s.D.Geetha
For Respondents :Mr.V.Panneerselvam
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed an aspirant to the post of Grade
-IIA services pursuant to the Notification No.3/2022 dated 23.02.2022
challenging the order dated 09.04.2024 wherein the petitioner's candidature was
rejected after on-line certificate verification.
2.The petitioner herein had studied up to VIII standard through regular
School. The petitioner had undergone S.S.L.C and Higher Secondary course
through private study. The petitioner had acquired B.LITT (Tamil) from Alagappa
University. Based upon the above said qualifications, the petitioner has applied
pursuant to the above said notification.
3.The petitioner has cleared preliminary examination as well as main
examination and she was called for on-line certificate verification. During the
online certificate verification, the respondents had entertained a doubt with regard
to PSTM candidature of the writ petitioner and has proceeded to reject the same.
Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.A perusal of the records reveal that the petitioner has enclosed PSTM
certificate in the prescribed format fot studying in Tamil medium up to VIII
standard. The petitioner has studied S.S.L.C and Higher Secondary Course
through private study and has obtained certificate from the Member Secretary of
State School Examination Committee who have issued S.S.L.C and Higher
Secondary course marks statements to the effect that she had undergone the said
courses in Tamil medium.
5.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the petitioner
having acquired B.LITT (Tamil), there cannot be any doubt, such a course is only
under Tamil medium. The learned counsel had further contended that the similarly
placed candidates who had undergone private study have challenged their
respective rejection orders in various writ petitions before this Court and this
Court has allowed those writ petitions and directed the authorities to consider
them under PSTM quota. The learned counsel had relied upon the judgment of
this Court in WA(MD).No.2468 of 2024 (Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission and another Vs. C.Kuttithai) dated 03.12.2024; W.P.Nos.4129 and
22818 of 2022 ( L.Logarajan Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil
Nadu and others) dated 11.03.2024; WP(MD).Nos.10518 & 10519 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( R.Saravanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) dated 29.04.2024;
WP(MD).Nos.10330 of 2024 ( S.Deepa Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission and others) dated 29.04.2024 and W.A.No.2164 of 2024
(Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. C.Dineshkumar) dated 29.10.2024
and contended that in all these cases, the Courts were pleased to set aside the
order passed by TNPSC and directed them to consider the candidature of the
petitioners under PSTM quota.
6.The learned counsel had further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1943 of 2022 (LT.Col.Suprita Chandel Vs.
Union of India and others) dated 09.12.2024 and contended that when a
particular order of the Court is not in personam, then, even if the similarly placed
candidates have not approached the Court, the said benefit should be extended by
the authority concerned to other similarly placed person and the authority cannot
expect each one of the candidates to approach the Court.
7.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents
herein had contended that the petitioner has not enclosed PSTM certificate for
S.S.L.C and Higher Secondary course in the prescribed format. That apart, the
petitioner has not produced the said certificate for Under Graduate Degree. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
such circumstances, the candidature of the writ petitioner has to be necessarily
rejected as per the instruction issued to the candidate which has got a statutory
force. He had further contended that as against the order passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench in W.A.No.2164 of 2024 (Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission Vs. C.Dineshkumar) dated 29.10.2024, TNPSC had already taken
steps to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He had further contended that
counselling for the above said post was held on 15.05.2024 to 20.06.2024 and all
the vacancies have already been filled up. The petitioner having approached this
Court belatedly, cannot get the benefits of the other petitioners who had
approached this Court in time. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order of
rejection passed by the respondent Commission.
8.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the
material records.
9.As far as the candidates who had passed SSLC and Higher Secondary
course through private study are concerned, they will not be in a position to get
PSTM certificate from the concerned School. Two Hon'ble Division Bench of our
High Court in WA(MD).No.2468 of 2024 and W.A.No.2164 of 2024 have
categorically held that the certificate issued by the authorities who have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conducted the said examination should be relied upon and they should be treated
as PSTM candidate. Therefore, the said order is not only applicable to the
petitioners therein, the benefit of the said order should have been extended to all
the candidates who had appeared privately and who had produced his certificate
from the authorities concerned. Therefore, TNPSC cannot contend that the
benefits can be extended only to the candidates who have approached the Court.
10.As far as Undergraduate Degree of the petitioner is concerned, the
petitioner has passed B.LITT (Tamil). It would be superfluous to contend that a
candidate should be directed to get a certificate that she had acquired B.LITT
(Tamil) through Tamil medium. In such circumstances, such a contention raised
by the Commission is not legally sustainable.
11.As far as the issue relating to the delay is concerned, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was under the fond hope that
TNPSC would implement the orders in favour of similarly placed candidates.
When TNPSC has not implemented the orders in favour of similarly placed
persons, the petitioner was forced to approach this Court. The authorities cannot
contend that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner. In various writ
petitions, the learned Single Judges as well as Two Division Benches have passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
orders holding that the certificate issued to the exam conducting body of the
private candidates, has to be treated as a PSTM certificate. In such circumstances,
the completion of counselling or the appointmnet orders issued to other
candidates cannot be a legal impediment to consider the request of the petitioner
under PSTM quota.
12.In view of the above said deliberations, the order impunged in the writ
petition is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature
of the petitioner under PSTM quota and pass orders in accordance with law, if she
is within the zone of consideration. The said exercise shall be completed within a
period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13.With the above said observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC: : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road, Park Town
Chennai 600 003
2.The Controller of the Examination
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road
Park Town
Chennai 600 003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
and WMP(MD).Nos.1310 & 1311 of 2025
27.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
