M. Padmavathy Vs the Director of School Education

That the present appellant was the writ petitioner who applied for appointment to the post of Special Teacher in Music pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent Teacher Recruitment Board¹ dated 26.07.2017. One post of Music Teacher since has been reserved vertically for Scheduled Tribe category, which has further been reserved horizontally for PSTM category, that is Persons Studied in Tamil Medium.

¶29

Though at the time of making application, the writ petitioner/appellant claimed that she studied in Tamil Medium and based on which, the provisional selection list was issued on 13.08.2018, where the name of the writ petitioner/appellant was included, subsequently, in the final list which was prepared by the TRB, the name of the writ petitioner/appellant was removed or not included. As against which, the writ petitioner/appellant had approached the Writ Court by filing the said writ petition.

¶30

1 In short, “TRB”.

¶31

Page 2 of 13

¶32

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

¶33

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶34

It is the contention of the writ petitioner/appellant, who appears as Party-in-Person before this Court, that, the writ petitioner/appellant studied the entire qualification in Tamil Medium, including 10^th Standard. That is the reason why she claims appointment under the PSTM quota. The same having been considered, her name was included in the provisional list and subsequently, in the final selection list, her name has been excluded for no fault of her and despite she having completed the entire qualification in Tamil Medium, non-selection of the writ petitioner/appellant under the PSTM quota is bad in law and also arbitrary. Therefore, when that was projected before the Writ Court, the Writ Court has not considered her case in proper perspective, hence, the writ petitioner/appellant was constrained to prefer the present intra-Court appeal. Therefore, the writ petitioner/appellant, who appears Party-in-Person, seeks indulgence of this Court as against the impugned order passed by the Writ Court.

¶35

Heard Mr.R.Neelakandan , learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan , learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TRB/respondent 2 and Mr.J.C.Durairaj , learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4.

¶36

Page 3 of 13

¶37

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

¶38

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶39

It is the case of the TRB, which was considered and recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order, that, though on the basis of the claim made by the writ petitioner/appellant, that she studied the entire qualification in Tamil Medium, initially, she was considered in the Tamil Medium quota and her name has been included in the provisional list, subsequently, when certificates were verified, since there have been no certificates to establish that the writ petitioner/appellant has studied 10^th Standard SSLC in Tamil Medium and since the certificates to that effect have not been produced, as the last date for producing such certificates was over as early as on 18.08.2017, the TRB could not select the writ petitioner/appellant under the PSTM quota.

¶40

That is the reason why her name though had been initially included in the provisional list, has subsequently been excluded and resultantly, she was not selected and this position having been considered in proper perspective by the learned Judge who dismissed the writ petition, hence, the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents want this matter to be dismissed without showing any indulgence as sought by the writ petitioner/appellant.

¶41

Page 4 of 13

¶42

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

¶43

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶44

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶45

It is the admitted case on the part of the writ petitioner/appellant that the last date for making such application and also these certificates to be produced was fixed as 18.08.2017, whereas, even though the writ petitioner/appellant had claimed that she studied the entire qualification in Tamil Medium, insofar as such claim is concerned, the certificates with regard to the studies she made in writing the 10^th Standard SSLC examination in Tamil Medium have not been produced.

¶46

It is the admitted case on the part of the writ petitioner/appellant that, since there is no specific certificate to that effect has been issued, such certificate could not have been produced, but, the fact remains that, according to the writ petitioner/appellant, in the 10^th Standard mark statement, it has been mentioned as Tamil as a language, apart from other subjects like English, Mathematics, Science and Social Science. Therefore, the 10^th Standard mark statement, which is a testimony to show or to establish that the writ petitioner/appellant has studied 10^th

¶47

Page 5 of 13

¶48

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

¶49

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶50

Standard in Tamil Medium and since 10^th Standard mark statement had already been submitted well before the cut-off date 18.08.2017 and based on which only the name of the writ petitioner/appellant

¶51

since has been included in the provisional selection list, there has been absolutely no reason to reject the candidature of the writ petitioner/appellant, that is exclusion of the same, from the provisional selection list, she contended.

¶52

The said understanding, as projected by the writ petitioner/appellant, is under wrong notion. The reason being that, insofar as the 10^th Standard SSLC examination is concerned, there are five subjects common to at least all the students or majority of the students who study 10^th Standard in the Schools, especially State Board Schools in the State of Tamil Nadu. The five subjects are, the first is language; the second subject is English; the third is Mathematics; the fourth is Science and the fifth is Social Science.

¶53

Insofar as the first language is concerned, no doubt, the writ petitioner/appellant studied Tamil as one of the subjects and the second is English. Insofar as the first and second subjects are concerned, because they are language subjects, those language subjects must be in the said languages alone. However, insofar as

¶54

Page 6 of 13

¶55

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

¶56

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶57

the Medium of Instructions is concerned, the remaining subjects, namely Mathematics, Science and Social Science, they ought to have been studied either in Tamil or in English. That is what called as the “Medium of Instruction”.

¶58

If the Medium of Instruction is Tamil, where all the subjects were taught, studied and examinations were written by the candidate concerned in Tamil, only then, the candidate could be considered to be a candidate who studied in Tamil Medium. Those persons studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) are eligible and are entitled to get horizontal reservation of 20% under the PSTM Act, 2010.

¶59

Here, in the case in hand, admittedly, the writ petitioner/appellant has produced the Secondary Grade Leave Certificate, where, it has been mentioned as Tamil as the first language, English as the second language, then Mathematics, Science and Social Science, but, nowhere, it has been stated that the subjects were taught and she wrote the examinations in Tamil.

¶60

Even though it was the fact, according to the writ petitioner/appellant, that she studied 10^th Standard in Tamil Medium only and to that effect she made a request to the Directorate of

¶61

Page 7 of 13

¶62

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

¶63

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶64

Government Examinations, she has issued a certificate on

¶65

18.09.2019 to the following effect:-

¶66

“ghh;itapy ; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s kDjhuhpd; fojj;Jld ; ,izj;J mDg;gg;gl;l fPH;f;fhz; tptu';fs ; ml';fpa kjpg;bgz ; rhd;wpjH;rhd;wpjHfs; ,t;tYtyf Mtz';fSld; xg;gpl;Lg; ghh;j;jjpy ; md;dhh ; jkpH ; bkhHp tHpapy; njh;btGjpa[s;shh ; (Written Exam in Tamil) vdj; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/”

¶67

Therefore, when this certificate having been produced, the

¶68

same should have been taken into account by the TRB in accepting the candidature of the writ petitioner/appellant as a person who studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) and accordingly, for the only post, that is Music Teacher for Scheduled Tribes category, reserved for PSTM candidates, even though the third respondent secured higher marks than the writ petitioner/appellant, the writ petitioner/appellant ought to have been selected and selection should have been finalized in the final selection list. This was the plea raised by the writ petitioner/appellant.

¶69

This plea cannot be accepted by this Court, as has not

¶70

been accepted by the Writ Court, the reason being that, the certificate dated 18.09.2019 is well after the cut-off date, that is 18.08.2017. Initially, the TRB has considered the application submitted by the writ petitioner/appellant, where, she claimed that

¶71

Page 8 of 13

¶72

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

¶73

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶74

she was a PSTM candidate, probably, the TRB had only included the name of the writ petitioner/appellant in the selection list, however, subsequently, when certificate verification was made, since there has been no certification to the extent to establish that the writ petitioner/appellant has studied 10^th Standard SSLC in Tamil Medium, rightly, her candidature has been rejected from the purview of PSTM candidate under the provisions of the PSTM Act. As there was no eligible candidate available in the particular quota, which is horizontally fixed for 16% reservation, where, horizontal reservation for PSTM quota has also been provided, such type of vacancy or situation could be switched over to the General pool, that is other candidates in the same communal category without having PSTM qualification.

¶75

Here, exactly that has happened, where, the third

¶76

respondent, though secured higher marks, initially, the writ petitioner/appellant was included in the provisional selection list because she claimed PSTM, as the vacancy was only fixed for PSTM horizontally and then subsequently, when there has been no certificates for verification and scrutiny, the mark statement given by the writ petitioner/appellant could not be verified and without having verification, it cannot be blamed that the TRB should have

¶77

Page 9 of 13

¶78

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

¶79

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶80

selected her under the PSTM quota.

¶81

Therefore, naturally, the writ petitioner/appellant has to face the ouster from the purview of provisional list, accordingly, she has been ousted from the provisional list, where, the actual meritorious candidate, who is the third respondent, who happens to be from the same communal category and the seat since also has been reserved for Scheduled Tribe Community and the third respondent also having such Community, she has been selected and appointment order has been given in the year 2019, where, she has been working for six years.

¶82

Without considering all these aspects, since the writ petitioner/appellant had approached the Writ Court, that too, belatedly only in the year 2020 after every selection was over and the appointment was given to the third respondent, the learned Judge, having considered all these factual matrix, has come to the conclusion, of course rightly, that the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner/appellant for want of proper certificates to be filed in time has to be accepted and accordingly, the writ petition filed by her was dismissed.

¶83

Page 10 of 13

¶84

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

¶85

W.A.No.3006 of 2025

¶86

Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the

¶87

said view taken by the learned Judge in the impugned order and the conclusion arrived by the learned Writ Court. Therefore, resultantly,

¶88

the writ appeal also deserves to be rejected, accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.24278 of 2025 is closed.

¶89

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No

¶90

(drm)

¶91

To:

¶92