Madras High Court

A.Geetha Muthulakshmi vs Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 23 July, 2025

                                                                                                 W.P.No.27559 of 2025

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED : 23.07.2025

                                                                 CORAM

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

                                                W.P.No.27559 of 2025
                                                        And
                                          W.M.P.Nos.30877 and 30878 of 2025


                     A.Geetha Muthulakshmi                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                                     Vs.

                     Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
                     Rep. by its Secretary,
                     TNPSC Road,
                     Park Town,
                     Chennai – 600 003.                                                     ... Respondent


                     Prayer:
                                  Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
                     issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to
                     the rejection as downloaded from the website of respondent dated
                     22.07.2025 to quash the same and to consequently direct the
                     respondent to declare the results and to appoint the petitioner as
                     Assistant        Public   Prosecutor        Grade-II         pursuant        to   Advertisement
                     No.695: Notification No.13/2024 dated 13.09.2024.



                                       For Petitioner         : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
                                       For Respondent         : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
                                                                Standing Counsel for TNPSC


                     1/8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                   ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 08:21:40 pm )
                                                                                              W.P.No.27559 of 2025




                                                          ORDER

Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on

behalf of the respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for

final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the

rejection as downloaded from the website of respondent dated

22.07.2025, to quash the same and to consequently direct the

respondent to declare the results and to appoint the petitioner as

Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II pursuant to Advertisement

No.695: Notification No.13/2024 dated 13.09.2024.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the sole ground that

she has not satisfied the conditions stipulated in Clause 4.3 of the

Notification dated 13.09.2024. For ready reference, the rejection

order is extracted hereunder:

“You are employed in Government/ Other service and do not fulfil the eligibility conditions specified in paragraph 4.3 of the Notification

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 08:21:40 pm )

No.13/2024, dated 13.09.2024. Hence you are not eligible to be considered for the Main Written Examination.”

4.It is the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner

having sufficient experience of not less than five years practice in

Criminal Court and her practice certificate has also been furnished in

the format approved by the Department, however, on the sole ground

that the petitioner is employed as on the date of notification, the

respondent has rejected the petitioner's candidature, which according

to the learned counsel, is contrary to the ratio laid down in the order

dated 13.12.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.237 of 2014 where the learned

Single Judge has held that unless the petitioner's name is removed

from the Bar Council, the question of her continuance in practice

cannot be constricted. Hence prayed to permit the petitioner to

participate in the examination.

5.Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel would invite the

attention of this Court to Clause 4.3 of the Notification dated

13.09.2024, where qualification and eligibility criteria has been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 08:21:40 pm )

given. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder:

4.3.Educational Qualification and Experience:

Name of Post Qualification and Experience the Post Code Assistant (i) Must possess B.L., Degree of any University or Public Institution recognized by the University grants Prosecutor commission for the purpose of its grant; Grade-II (ii) Must be a member of the Bar and must have had active practice in Criminal Courts for a period of not less than 5 years Explanation: The expression “active practice in Criminal Courts” shall include the period of service rendered by a person as a temporary Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II

(iii) Must possess adequate knowledge of Tamil Explanation: For this purpose, a person will be deemed to possess an adequate knoledge of Tamil if he has passed the S.S.L.C. Public Examination or its equivalent examination with Tamil as one of the languages studied in the High School Course in tamil Medium and also S.S.L.C. Public Examination in Tamil Medium or passed the Second Class Language Test in Tamil conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service 1797 Commission.

6.It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the

word 'active practice' would only denote that the candidate must have

five years experience immediately preceding to the date of

Notification. In the case in hand, on the date of Notification, the

petitioner was employed in Government of Tamil Nadu in

Environmental Department on contractual pay. Therefore, she is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 08:21:40 pm )

eligible to participate in the examination. In this connection, the

learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench

of this Court in W.A.No.813 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024 and would rely

upon paragraph 13. For ready reference, the same is extracted

hereunder:

“13. Though the judgment in Deepak Agarwal (Supra) considered the expression “has been”, while the impugned notification uses the expression “have had”, we would think it would not make any material difference. While the expression “has been” considered by the Supreme Court in Deepak Agarwal is present perfect continuous, the expression“have had” employed in Notification No.10/2021 is in present perfect tense, which is also used to convey an act / event which started occurring in the past and still happening. The present perfect tense is formed by the present tense of the helping verb “have” followed by a second verb in the past participle form, which we can summarize as follows:

present perfect have/has + past participle The present perfect is used to describe actions that have occurred continuously or repeatedly from some time in the past right up to the present

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 08:21:40 pm )

moment (sometimes with the implication that these actions will continue into the future). 4 In other words, the expression “has been” and “have had” both look to an act / event which has commenced in the past and continuing. Applying the above requirement/test, it would be clear that the appellant fails to satisfy the eligibility criteria viz., “he must have had active practice in criminal court for a period of not less than 5 years”, inasmuch as even in terms of the certificate furnished by the appellant, it only covers the period 22.09.2010 to 13.09.2016, whereas the requirement was that the candidate ought to be in active practice for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of the application which the appellant fails to satisfy thereby rendering herself ineligible.

7.I have given my anxious consideration to either side

submissions.

8.The short point to be considered in the present writ petition is

how the sentence “must have active practice in Criminal Courts” is to

be interpreted?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 08:21:40 pm )

9.It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner that on the date of Notification, it is not necessary that the

petitioner must be in active practice and it is sufficient that she must

possess five years experience in Criminal Courts preceding to the

notification date. Such contention was objected by the learned

Standing Counsel and his contention is that the five years practice