Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Public Services ... vs M.Sathya on 25 November, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A No.3321 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A No. 3321 of 2025
And
CMP.No. 27150 of 2025
The Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission,
Rep by its Secretary,
Public Service Commission Road,
Park Town, Chennai-600003. ..Appellant
Vs
1.M.Sathya
2.The Director of Government Examination,
Chennai
(Suo-motu impleaded as per order
dated 30.04.2024) ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
orders dated 31.07.2024 passed in W.P. No. 12254 of 2024.
For Appellant: Mr. K. Karthik Jaganathan
For Respondents : Mr.R. Prem Narayan - R1
For Mr. K.T.S. Sivakumar
Mr.S. Yashwanth, AGP - R2
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:25:40 pm )
W.A No.3321 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)
The challenge in this intra-court appeal is to the order dated 31.07.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12254 of 2024. By the said
order, the appellant was directed to assign rank to the respondent/writ petitioner
under the PSTM category by applying the benefit of 20% reservation under the
Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the State
of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010, and to issue an appointment
order for the post of Assistant in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Tiruppur, forthwith.
2. Pursuant to the notification dated 23.02.2022 issued by the appellant,
the respondent/writ petitioner submitted an application for recruitment under
the PSTM quota. In the written examination, she secured 70.5 marks in Paper-I
and 14.025 marks in Paper-II. Her overall rank is 5931 and her communal rank
is 1765. However, she was not considered under the PSTM category on the
ground that she had studied up to the 11th standard in Tamil medium but had
passed the 12th examination as a private candidate. Therefore, she was held to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:25:40 pm )
be not entitled to appointment under the PSTM quota as per G.O. No. 82,
Human Resources (S) Department, dated 16.08.2021. The learned Single Judge,
after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same,
the present writ appeal has been filed.
3. Mr. K. Karthik Jaganathan, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant, submitted that the respondent/writ petitioner had studied in Tamil
medium up to the 11th standard and thereafter passed the 12th examination as a
private candidate. Therefore, in view of sub-clause (iv) of Clause 4 of the
Government Order dated 15.04.2025 bearing G.O. Ms. No. 16 issued by the
Human Resource Management (S) Department, the respondent/writ petitioner is
not entitled to appointment under the PSTM category. Hence, the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the said Government
Order and is not sustainable in law.
4. In response, Mr. R. Prem Narayan, learned Counsel for the first
respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that sub-clause (iv) of Clause 4 of the said
Government Order is not applicable to the respondent/writ petitioner, as it
applies only to candidates who passed the examination in Tamil medium as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:25:40 pm )
private candidates without regular schooling. In the present case, the
respondent/writ petitioner had studied up to the 11th standard in Tamil medium
in a recognized school and, due to unavoidable circumstances, discontinued her
studies and completed her 12th standard as a private candidate. The learned
Single Judge, after considering all these aspects, rightly passed the impugned
order, which does not warrant interference.
5. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both
parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. A bare reading of G.O. Ms. No. 16 dated 15.04.2025, which relates to
appointment on a preferential basis in the services under the State for Persons
Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 and was issued to implement an order of
the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, reveals that sub-clause (iv) of
Clause 4 states that candidates who have passed examinations in Tamil medium
directly as private candidates without attending school are not eligible for
preference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:25:40 pm )
7. In the present case, the respondent/writ petitioner admittedly studied
up to the 11th standard in Tamil medium in a recognized school but, due to
unavoidable circumstances, discontinued schooling and appeared privately for
the 12th standard examination. The learned Single Judge, upon perusal of the
mark sheet produced by the respondent/writ petitioner, noted that she had
appeared for the 12th standard examination in Tamil medium and observed that
it would be improbable for a student who studied up to the 11th standard in
Tamil medium to suddenly write the 12th examination in English medium.
Moreover, the respondent was issued a PSTM certificate for her 12th standard
by the Department of Government Examinations, certifying that she studied in
Tamil medium.
8. Admittedly, sub-clause (iv) of Clause 4 of the said Government Order
applies only to candidates who did not study in a recognized school but passed
examinations in Tamil medium privately. Therefore, since the respondent/writ
petitioner had successfully studied up to the 11th standard in Tamil medium in a
recognized school, she cannot be treated as a private candidate within the
meaning of that clause. The said clause applies only to candidates who have not
substantially attended school and are, therefore, ineligible for preference
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:25:40 pm )
9. The learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has also placed
on record the memorandum dated 26.09.2025 issued by the appellant,
appointing the respondent/writ petitioner to the post of Assistant in the Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Tiruppur, subject to the outcome
of the cases relating to this recruitment pending before the High Court of
Madras / Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court / Supreme Court.
10. In light of the above, it is evident that the respondent/writ petitioner
has satisfied all the prerequisite conditions for appointment under the PSTM
category. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
11. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)
25.11.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:25:40 pm )
To
The Director of Government Examination,
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:25:40 pm )
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
ak
25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:25:40 pm )
