Madras High Court
M.Karthikeyan vs The Chairman on 2 June, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No. 5283 of 2025
And
W.M.P.No. 5856 of 2025
M.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The Chairman
TANGEDCO
NPKRR Maligai
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002.
2. Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO
NPKRR Maligai
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to
select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Gangman on the date other
candidates appointed under the Notification No.1/2019 dated 07.03.2019 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
2
the respondents with all service and monetary benefits by taking into
consideration that those who have obtained lesser marks than the petitioner
have been appointed.
***
For Petitioner :: Ms. Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Ms. S. Suneetha
For Respondents :: Mr. Anandh Gopalan
for M/s. Agam Legal
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Mandamus seeking
a direction against the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner to the
post of Gangman on the date when other candidates appointed under the
Notification No.1/2019 dated 07.03.2019 had been appointed. The
petitioner also seeks that service and monetary benefits must be granted.
2. The petitioner has raised a grievance that those, who had
obtained lesser marks in the qualifying examination than the petitioner had
been issued with letters of appointment, but the petitioner had been over
looked.
3. The Writ Petition came up for hearing 25.04.2025 on which date,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
the Court had reduced the facts and the rival contentions. It would be
prudent to reproduce the same.
“3.In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it
had been stated that the petitioner, who had qualified
with 11 th standard since he had failed 12th standard
and belongs to Scheduled Caste community had applied
for the post of Gangman, consequent to the notification
issued by the respondents to fill about the 15,000
vacancies. The petitioner had obtained 65 marks in the
written examination. He also passed the physical test.
He was then waiting for the receipt of the appointment
letter. But he had not received it. Thereafter, contending
that those who had obtained lesser marks than the
petitioner had been appointed and seeking the reason as
to why the petitioner had been left out, the petitioner had
filed the present writ petition in the nature of a
Mandamus seeking a direction to be so appointed as
Gangman under the respondents.
4.A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of
the respondents, wherein, it had been stated that the
petitioner had applied under PSTM quota. It would
require production of the certificate certifying that the
petitioner had actually studied in Tamil Medium during
his school days. The fact that the petitioner had
obtained 65 marks is not denied by the respondents. But
however, it is claimed that the petitioner was ranked
8543 among all the candidates. It had been contended
that 98 candidates had secured 65 marks. The
respondents had a particular method of breaking the tie
and the correctness of that particular method cannot be
subjected to judicial review at this point of time. But
however, if the petitioner had actually been considered
as PSTM candidate, then, the petitioner would have a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
reasonable chance of being issued with the appointment
letter. Petitioner had applied under PSTM candidates
quota. Two mutually exclusive statements had been put
across the Bar and had also been sworn in by the
petitioner in the affidavit and the respondents in the
counter affidavit. Petitioner claims that at the time of
certificate verification, he had produced the relevant
certificates to indicate that he had studied in Tamil
Medium in his school days. The respondents however
deny that such a certificate had not been produced.
5.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
pointed out that the check list had been produced at the
time of certificate verification and in that particular
check list, in Sl.No.1020, with the Admit Card
No.V0437R1020, in column No.9, wherein, a remark is
given whether the individual is a person, who studied in
Tamil Medium, it had been remarked as Yes.
6.The learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents however claimed that this is an
automatically generated document and it only gives the
check list and it does not actually indicate that the
certificate was produced by the petitioner to certify that
they studied in Tamil Medium.
7.With respect to the availability of the post, it is
contended by the learned Senior Counsel, as on date,
there are still 386 vacancies and therefore, it is
contended that the petitioner can be accommodated in
any one of the vacancies. This is however objected by
the respondents by contending that the said vacancies
were reserved exclusively for the persons, who are
physically disabled and therefore, the petitioner could
not be accommodated in any one of the vacant post.
This Court had also examined the possibility of alternate
disputes resolutions method to be adopted to resolve this
particular issue. But however, that was not taken up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
and therefore, let me give a quietus to the averments
made in the affidavit and the counter affidavit.
8.It is not in dispute that the petitioner had
applied in response to the notification called for the post
of Gangman by the respondents. It is also not in dispute
that the candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste
community. It is further not in dispute that he had failed
in 12th standard and had studied only upto 11th standard.
In the documents filed along with the writ petition, the
petitioner had documents to show the particular medium
of instructions which he had undertaken in school was
through Tamil Medium and to certify that, the Principal
of the Municipal Primary School at Namakkal, had
issued a certificate on 20.05.2019. It had been very
specifically stated that the petitioner had studied upto 5th
standard in Tamil Medium. A further certificate had
been issued again by the Principal of the Government
Boys Higher Secondary School, Mohanur, Namakkal,
wherein, it had been stated that the petitioner had
studied 6th and 10th standards in Tamil Medium. A
further certificate had been issued again by the
Principal that the petitioner had studied 11th and 12th
standard in Tamil Medium. The genuineness of these
certificates are not put to test by the respondents. The
issue is whether he produced the certificate before the
respondents at the time of the certificate verification. A
check list had been produced by the petitioner herein
and that particular document given is not disputed by
the respondents. This particular document had been
issued by the respondents. It contains the name of the
venue in the Namakkal. It is an admit card for writing
the examination and the name of the individual is given.
It is used by the official to conduct the interview. When
they conduct interview, they were given this check list to
verify the qualification of the petitioner and his personal
details. It was presented before them, in that the name
of the petitioner had been given and his gender had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
given, the address had been given, pincode had been
given, mobile number had been given, Email Id had
been given, the date of birth had been given and the
caste to which the candidate belongs to had been given
and the educational qualification had also been given.
There is a very specific column with reference to priority
category and group and it is stated that it is not
applicable. There is a separate column for the persons,
who studied in Tamil Medium. It is very specifically
stated yes and thereafter, a committee has to verify the
form details they are Supt./APO/PO(HQ), Asst./Adm.
Adm.Supervisor, A.Adm.O/Adm.O. In the forms
available with the Court, their designations are given.
9.The learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents stated that at the time of interview, if the
details aforementioned in the check list are correct, then
the officials would have signed it. But if the details
aforementioned are not correct, they should have given
that particular remark also. There is no reason to
presume that the petitioner had a certificate in his hand
and not produced the same. Therefore, the production
of the original records are required and that would take
the Court away from examining the affidavit on oath and
counter affidavit on oath and place reliance on the
document produced by the respondents in confirmity of
the document produced by the petitioner.”
4. As is seen from a perusal of the facts, the petitioner had obtained
65 marks in the qualifying examination. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner had raised a strong protest against the non-selection of the
petitioner by pointing out that those who had obtained even zero marks had
been issued with letters of appointment. The learned Senior Counsel further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
pointed out that the petitioner had also applied under the PSTM quota.
5. The original records had been produced by the learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents. It is seen that the petitioner had produced
documents reflecting that he had studied in Tamil medium in 10th standard.
But however, it is contended that this certificate is not sufficient as it should
indicate that he had studied in Tamil medium right from 1st standard to 10th
standard. The respondents could have called upon the petitioner to produce
certificates as required and which would satisfy them that he actually studied
in Tamil medium right through his school education.
6. There are two aspects. One is the educational qualification
required and the other is production of certificates to certify the statements
made about the basic educational qualification. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste community. The respondents had an
obligation to examine his credentials taking into consideration that particular
fact.
7. The issue whether producing certificates is a procedural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
irregularity which could be cured or is an incurable defect had come up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in
(2005) 9 SCC 779 [ Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chiarman, Jee and Others]. In
that particular case, the appellant had passed 10+2 (Science) Examination in
first class. She appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination 2003, (JEE-
2003) under the reserved MI category being daughter of an ex-serviceman,
who was discharged from the armed forces on the ground of permanent
disability. Her rank in JEE-2003 in the reserved MI category in the medical
stream was 20. She was called for counselling for admission to a medical
college. During the course of scrutiny of her certificates, it was found that
the certificate dated 29.06.2003 given to her father by the Zilla Sainik Board
in column 3 which pertained to “disabled/killed in war/hostilities”, the
words “not eligible” were written. Since this certificate did not satisfy the
authorities, her candidature was rejected. Subsequently, the candidates, who
had secured the ranks 24 and 26 in the aforementioned category were given
admission. The appellant then produced the disability certificate which had
been issued to her father by the Army authorities, but that certificate was not
accepted. Her father then requested the Zilla Sainik Board to issue a
certificate with correct details and that certificate was issued on 16.07.2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
It mentioned “permanently disabled” in column 3.
8. The appellant then approached the respondent with the corrected
certificate but no action was taken. She sought admission on the basis of
the corrected certificate produced. However, the candidates who had
secured rank Nos. 27 to 30 were called for counselling but the appellant's
candidature was not considered. She then filed a Writ Petition before the
High Court seeking consideration of the certificate and admission. The Writ
Petition was dismissed by the High Court, holding that since she had not
produced the certificate at the time of counselling, her claim that she
belonged to the reserved MI category had not been established.
9. In the counter affidavit, the respondents had not disputed the
subsequent certificate produced by the appellant and had also not denied that
candidates, who had secured lower ranks had been provided with admission.
The fact that the father of the appellant had been discharged from the Army
owing to permanent disability had again not been disputed by the
respondents. The only ground taken was that on the date of counselling, the
appellant had not produced the relevant certificate that she belonged to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
reserved category. While examining the case of the appellant therein, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:-
“7. The general rule is that while applying
for any course of study or a post, a person must
possess the eligibility qualification on the last date
fixed for such purpose either in the admission
brochure or in application form, as the case may
be, unless there is an express provision to the
contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard
i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility
qualification by the date fixed. This has to be
established by producing the necessary
certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in
order to avail of the benefit of reservation or
weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be
produced. These are documents in the nature of
proof of holding of particular qualification or
percentage of marks secured or entitlement to
benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts
of a case, there can be some relaxation in the
matter of submission of proof and it will not be
proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains
in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of
the rule relating to submission of proof need not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
8. This principle was explained and applied
in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew [(1980) 2
SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305]. The controversy
here related to admission to a postgraduate course
in medicine. The relevant rule provided for
addition of 10% marks if a candidate possessed a
diploma in the relevant subject or subspecialty and
this benefit could be given only if the candidate's
success in the diploma course was brought to the
knowledge of the Selection Committee before
completion of selection in an authentic or
acceptable manner. The prospectus provided that
the attested copies of statement of marks and other
documents should be attached with every
application. Three such candidates were given
admission who had not attached the certificate of
having passed the diploma along with their
applications. Their admission to postgraduate
course was set aside by the High Court on the
ground that their applications, wherein they
claimed the benefit of diploma, were liable to be
rejected as the requisite certificates had not been
attached. This Court speaking through Krishna
Iyer, J. reversed the judgment of the High Court
and held that the admission to the candidates had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
rightly been given as they had in fact passed the
diploma before the date fixed. The relevant parts of
paras 20 and 24 of the judgment, where this
principle was highlighted are being reproduced
below: (SCC pp. 762 & 763)
“20. There is nothing unreasonable or
arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a
diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the
diploma must be obtained at least on or before the
last date for application, not later. Proof of having
obtained a diploma is different from the factum
of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact,
secured a diploma before the final date of
application for admission to the degree course?
That is the primary question. It is prudent to
produce evidence of the diploma along with the
application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of
the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second.
Academic excellence, through a diploma for which
extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because
proof is produced only later, yet before the date of
actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma;
the proof thereof subserves the factum of
possession of the diploma and is not an
independent factor. … Mode of proof is geared to
the goal of the qualification in question. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
subversive of sound interpretation and realistic
decoding of the prescription to telescope the two
and make both mandatory in point of time. What is
essential is the possession of a diploma before the
given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of
proof of the qualification. To confuse between a
fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make
mandatory the date of acquiring the additional
qualification before the last date for application
makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that
the qualification has been acquired before the
relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this
merit factor because proof, though indubitable,
was adduced a few days later but before the
selection or in a manner not mentioned in the
prospectus, but still above board, is to make
procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and
form not as subservient to substance but as
superior to the essence.
***
24. It is notorious that this formalistic,
ritualistic approach is unrealistic and is
unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the
purpose of the exercise. This way of viewing
problems dehumanises the administrative,
judicial and even legislative processes in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
wider perspective of law for man and not man for
law. Much of hardship and harassment in
administration flows from overemphasis on the
external rather than the essential. We think the
Government and the Selection Committee rightly
treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of
proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory
the actual possession of the diploma. In actual
life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to
get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to
speak of other authenticated documents like
marklists from universities, why, even bail orders
from courts and government orders from public
offices.”
9. The appellant undoubtedly belonged to
reserved MI category. She comes from a very
humble background, her father was only a Naik in
the armed forces. He may not have noticed the
mistake which had been committed by the Zilla
Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate
dated 29-6-2003. But it does not mean that the
appellant should be denied her due when she
produced a correct certificate at the stage of
second counselling. Those who secured rank
lower than the appellant have already been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
admitted. The view taken by the authorities in
denying admission to the appellant is wholly unjust
and illegal.
10. The appellant had qualified in JEE-2003
but the said academic year is already over. But for
this situation the fault lies with the respondents,
who adopted a highly technical and rigid attitude,
and not with the appellant. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that the appellant should be given
admission in MBBS course in any of the State
medical colleges in the current academic year.
11. The appeal is accordingly allowed with
costs. The judgment and order dated 31-10-2003
of the High Court is set aside. The respondents
are directed to give admission to the appellant in
any one of the State medical colleges forthwith.
In case the State seats have already been filled
up, one extra seat shall be created for her.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. The facts in the instant case are similar to the aforementioned
case. In this case, the petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste community which
is not disputed by the respondents. He had the requisite educational
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
qualification having failed in 12th standard and therefore, having passed upto
11th standard , the required qualification being pass in 10th standard. He had
applied under PSTM category. He had produced a certificate to show that he
had passed 10th standard in Tamil medium. He had also studied the 11th and
12th standard in Tamil medium. He had also produced a certificate to show
his 10th standard mark sheet wherein the medium of study is given as Tamil.
If the respondents had wanted him to produce a certificate that he had
studied the entire course from 1st standard to 10th standard in Tamil medium,
they could have asked him to produce the same. He has also subsequently
produced a certificate to show that he had studied upto 5th standard and
above in Tamil medium. This certificate is also enclosed as a document
filed along with the Writ Petition. He had obtained 65% marks in the
qualifying examination. Those, who had obtained even zero marks have
been selected. There is no credible reason advnced why the petitioner had
been disqualified.
11. On the side of the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner
had approached the Court after considerable period of time. But even in the
Judgment cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given consideration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
to the fact that the appellant therein belonged to reserved MI category and
come from a very humble background and her father was only a Naik in the
armed force and would not have noticed the mistake in the certificate issued.
It had also been noted that those, who had got lower marks had been granted
admission. As a matter of fact, even though the academic year was already
over, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given a direction that she may be given
admission in the current academic year in any medical college and to create
one extra seat. Therefore, the issue of delay cannot be held against the
petitioner.
12. It had been further contended on behalf of the respondents that
there are only 387 vacancies as on date, all reserved for those who suffered
from physical disablement. But if the petitioner's certificate had been
properly considered and if the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to
produce required certificates in the first instance, then the petitioner would
certainly have been issued with an appointment order particularly since
those who had obtained even zero marks in the written examination had
been selected. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner deserves to be issued
with an appointment letter and must be declared as having been selected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
13. As pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant
therein had qualified in JEE-2003 but the said academic year was already
over, but that the fault lay with the respondents, who adopted a highly
technical and rigid attitude, and not with the appellant therein.
14. In the instant case, the petitioner had been rejected on extremely
narrow grounds. A simple enquiry would have revealed that in the school
where the petitioner studied, which is a Government School, there was no
possibility of education being afforded in English medium. The only
medium in which education could be afforded was Tamil medium. The
petitioner should have been considered for appointment and his credentials
should have been appreciated. He should not have been disqualified.
15. I direct the respondents to issue necessary appointment order to
the petitioner as Gangman but however, since the petitioner himself had
approached the Court with delay, I hold he is not entitled to service or
monetary benefits but is entitled to such benefits from the date on which he
actually joins the respondents as Gangman. Necessary orders in this regard
must be passed within a period of four weeks from this date.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
16. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.06.2025
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
vsg
To
1. The Chairman
TANGEDCO
NPKRR Maligai
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002.
2. Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TANGEDCO
NPKRR Maligai
No.144, Anna Salai
Chennai – 600 002.
Pre-Delivery Order made in
And
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
02.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/06/2025 04:27:04 pm )
