T.Kalaiselvi Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying nd to issue a writ of Certiorarifed Calling for the records on the file of the 2 respondent herein in and by proceedings dated 19.12.2024 to the limited extent of omission of the name of the petitioner herein and the proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent herein PL. No 09 / MRB / 2022 dated 03.01.2025 to the extend of non inclusion of the name of the petitioner therein and inclusion of the 4th Respondent therein and quash the same and in any event, to appoint the petitioner under MBC (DNC) PSTM category in the place of the 4th respondent herein or in any of the vacancy and to confer her all consequential benefits with effect form the date of appointment of the other candidates to the post of Junior Analyst and to grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits with a limited time frame

¶26

For Petitioner(s): M/s. M. Ravi For Respondent(s): Mr.Naveen Kumar Govt.Advocate For R1 Mr.L.Murugavel, S.C., For R2

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 18007 of 2025

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The instant writ petition has been filed on the premise that there is no Tamil Medium Course for M.Sc., Chemistry in Tamil Nadu. However, the reservation of one seat is reserved for PSTM candidate under the BC category.

¶31

Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.Naveen Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.L.Murugavel, learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.

¶32

It is the submission of the petitioner that when there is no post graduate degree for Chemistry provided in Tamil Nadu under Tamil Medium, the reservation is without taking into practical situation. Apart from that, it is the submission of the petitioner that PSTM reserved seat has been allotted to the 4th respondent.

¶33

At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration.

¶34

I have given my anxious consideration to either side submission.

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 18007 of 2025

¶37

Though it was contended by the petitioner that the reservation for

¶38

PSTM is not in accordance with practical situation of Tamil Nadu, now his contention is that such seat has been allotted to somebody else.

¶39

In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the

¶40

petitioner has not come within the zone of consideration. Paragraph 14 of the counter statement filed by the 2nd respondent states as follows:-

¶41

“ 14. It is submitted that, the Candidate has secured a

¶42

total of 41 marks, however the Cut off mark for MBC/DNC Communal category, which the Candidate belongs to is 58 marks and hence the candidate has not reached the Zone of Consideration.”

¶43