Disposed

S.Kamal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC28 Aug 2024WP/24898/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A candidate sought consideration under the 20% Tamil Medium (PSTM) quota for TNPSC Combined Civil Services Examination-II despite the notification applying unmodified G.O.Ms.No.82 requirements. The court clarified that references to the Government Order must be read with its earlier order modifying those requirements, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Clarification that G.O.Ms.No.82 dated 16.08.2021 shall be read with the earlier modification; respondents directed to consider such claims under the 20% PSTM quota.

S.Kamal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.08.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.24898 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.27246 & 27249 of 2024

¶6

S.Kamal ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Human Resources Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Service Commission Road, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned Notification/Advertisement issued by the 2nd respondent in advertisement No.687, Notification No.8/2024 dated 20.06.2024 in so far as 4.1.1 in clause 4.1 and 4.2.2 and 4.2.5 in clause 4.2 of the Annexure II of the Notification concerned and quash the same and thereby direct the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as eligible for availing the benefit of 20%

¶9

1/10

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

Reservation/Preference provided for the persons studied in Tamil Medium for direct recruitment to the vacancies in the posts included in Combined Civil Services examination-II (Group-II and II A Services).

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.K.Tamilvendan Government Advocate for R1

¶14

Mr.R.Bharanidharan Standing Counsel for R2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notification dated 20.06.2024 insofar as Clause 4.1.1 in Clause 4.1 and 4.2.2 and 4.2.5 in Clause 4.2 of Annexure-II in notification issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 20.06.2024 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner under 20% reservation for Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) for direct recruitment to the vacancies in the posts included in Combined Civil Services Examination-II (Group-II and IIA Services).

¶17

2.Heard Mr.A.R.Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.K.Tamilvendan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent and Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing

¶18

2/10

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶21

3.The main grievance that was expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is entitled to be considered under the 20% reservation for PSTM category in light of the order passed in W.P.Nos.4129 and 22818 of 2022, dated 11.03.2024, which order modified the requirements in G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 16.08.2021. Whereas, when the notification was issued by the 2^nd respondent, the pre-modified Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 16.08.2021 was insisted upon and aggrieved by the same, the relevant Clauses have been put to challenge in this writ petition.

¶22

4.The writ petitions were filed in W.P.Nos.4129 and 22818 of 2022, challenging the G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 16.08.2021. This Court had taken into account some of the categories of persons who had undergone night school (Nila Oli Palli) and had completed SSLC and higher secondary in Tamil medium. This Court apart from the above category, also considered those persons who had completed various levels of education through distance education. On considering the rival claims, the following order was passed on 11.03.2024:

¶23

3/10

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

13. In view of the above, the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.82, Human Resources Management (s) Department dated 16.08.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent insofar as clause 4(iii) ''only those who studied their entire education through out in Tamil medium viz., right from 1st standard upto prescribe qualification.'' is modified as ''only those persons who have completed their entire education right from their schooling up to the qualification prescribed in the relevant service rules''.

¶26

14. Insofar as W.P.No.4129 of 2022 is concerned, the revised list of candidates provisionally admitted in the written examination for the direct recruitment of Combined Civil Service Examinations (Group-I Service) dated 14.12.2021 on the file of the 3rd respondent is quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The 3rd respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner and permit him to write main examination for the appointment to the direct recruitment of Combined Civil Service Examinations (Group I Service) and for further selection process.

¶27

15. Insofar as the petitioner in W.P.No.22812 of 2022 is concerned, the petitioner had completed his basic schooling up to 8th standard in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Melacheri Village & Post, Gingee Taluk. Thereafter, he could not be able to pursue his studies in the school due to his family situation and he

¶28

4/10

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

was constrained to go for employment in order to support his family. Therefore, the District Collector, Kancheepuram District had started night school namely ''Nila Olli Palli'' (Moon Light Schools) successfully for benefit and welfare of child labourers who were dragged to employment at their early age during the day time. The petitioner was admitted in the said night school i.e., ''Nila Olli Palli'' and he had completed his SSLC and HSC in Tamil as medium of instruction. Therefore, it cannot be construed that the petitioner did not study his 9th standard to +2 in Tamil Medium. The object and reasons of the Act states that in order to facilitate the adhesive enforcement for their pupils to prefer Tamil till various levels of education and also over come the disability created due to studying in Tamil medium. Therefore, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as eligible candidate availing 20% of preference provided under PSTM quota in the direct recruitment of Combined Civil Service Examinations (Group I Service) and permit the petitioner to write main examination in the Combined Civil Service Examinations (Group I Service) and allow his candidature for selection process of Combined Civil Service Examinations (Group I Service). It is also made clear that this case shall be considered as special case and permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process under PSTM Act.

¶31

5.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the above order passed has

¶32

5/10

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

become final and no appeal was filed against the said order. In view of the same, the requirements in G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 16.08.2021, insisting for studying from 1^st standard to Post Graduate degree through Tamil Medium of instructions stood modified.

¶35

6.The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner falls within the category of persons for whom the modification was made in the above order. However, since the notification issued by the 2^nd respondent is insisting for the premodified requirements under G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 16.08.2021, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶36

7.The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent submitted that the notification cannot carry the entire modification that was made by this Court. Therefore, wherever there is a reference to G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 16.08.2021, the same has to be read along with the modification made by this Court in W.P.Nos.4129 and 22818 of 2022, dated 11.03.2024.

¶37

8.The apprehension of the petitioner is that after participating in the selection, his candidature should not be rejected under the PSTM category on the

¶38

6/10

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

ground that he did not fulfil the requirements under the notification. This apprehension raised by the petitioner is sufficiently answered by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶41

9.In the light of the above discussion, it is made clear that wherever there is a reference to G.O.Ms.No.82, dated 16.08.2021, it shall be read along with the modification made by this Court in W.P.Nos.4129 and 22818 of 2022, dated 11.03.2024. Therefore, whoever is seeking for reservation under PSTM and if such claim falls within the clarification issued by way of modification by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, the same has to be taken into consideration by the respondents. This clarification will sufficiently take care of the interest of the petitioner.

¶42

10.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

28.08.2024

¶44

7/10

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

Internet : Yes Index : Yes Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order ssr

¶47

(3/3)

¶48

8/10

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

¶51

1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Human Resources Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶52

2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), Chennai Service Commission Road, Chennai – 600 003.

¶53

9/10

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶56

ssr

¶57

W.P.No.24898 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.27246 & 27249 of 2024

28.08.2024

(3/3)

10/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Kamal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kamal v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manirathinam Vs the Director General of Police

R.Govindaraj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Rajkumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.G.Uma Ph.D., Vs the Director of Collegiate Education

S.Poongodi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

V.Prabhu Vs the State of Tamil Nadu