M.Prakash Vs The Secondary to Government

PRAYER:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to follow the 1st respondents government order in G.O.Ms. No.40, personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 30.04.2014 in 20 percentage quota reservation for PSTM (Persons studied in Tamil Medium) candidates by short- listing the candidates separately for the post of sub inspector of police (Finger print) from the results publishing to filling up the posts as per notification in Advertisement No.2/ 2018 dated 29.08.2018.

¶15

Page No.1/6

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 5226 of 2019

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Sundaravadanam For Respondent(s): Mrs.V. Yamunadevi, S.G.P. (for R1,2); Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG assisted by Mr.Sowmi Dattan, SC (for R-3)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the present writ petition in the nature of mandamus to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to follow the 1st respondent’s Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.40, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 30.04.2014, in providing 20 percentage quota reservation for PSTM (Persons Studied in Tamil Medium) candidates by directing the respondents to short- list these candidates separately for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger print) from the results published pursuant to the notification in Advertisement No.2/ 2018 dated 29.08.2018.

¶21

2.The petitioner contends that, the respondents while issuing the notification dated 29.08.2018, for appointment of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger print) did not provide a 20% quota reservation for PSTM candidates, as mandated by G.O.Ms.No.40, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 30.04.2014. Thus, the respondents 2 and 3 have acted contrary to the Government Order which is in force.

¶22

Page No.2/6

¶23

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

¶24

WP No. 5226 of 2019

¶25

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the respondents failed to provide the mandatory 20% quota reservation for PSTM candidates, the entire selection process undertaken by the respondents is vitiated. Consequently, the list of candidates selected for the aforesaid post must be set aside.

¶26

4.The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition had already been a subject matter of consideration before a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench vide W.P.(MD) Nos. 19112, 19121, 19123 and 18668 of 2020 decided by order dated 10.02.2021, and that the Division Bench of this Court, by its orders, had restricted the benefit of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) reservation specifically only to the petitioners who were before the Court. The Division Bench further observed that the application of PSTM reservation within the general or other reserved categories, as the case may be, ought to be considered for the next stage of the recruitment process.

¶27

5.Learned Special Government Pleader further contended that several similar subsequent cases filed before the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench, specifically in WP(MD) No.3307 of 2021 ,dated 19.2.2021 , WP(MD) No.6093

¶28

Page No.3/6

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 5226 of 2019

¶31

of 2020 dated 3.3.2021 and WP(MD) No.6014 of 2021 dated 17.3.2021, were dismissed, wherein the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe that since the earlier Division Bench order (in W.P.(MD) Nos. 19112, 19121, 19123 and 18668 of 2020 dated 10.02.2021), had expressly restricted relief solely to those original petitioners, the new petitioners could not subsequently claim or seek the 20% Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) reservation benefit within that specific, ongoing recruitment process.

¶32

Learned special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents further submitted that since the petitioner in the present writ petition is similarly placed as the petitioners in the previously dismissed cases in WP(MD) No.3307 of 2021 , WP(MD) No.6093 of 2020 and WP(MD) No.6014 of 2021, he cannot cannot assert a broader claim or seek resolution of his claim regarding the exclusion of the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) category from the recruitment process, as the issue of entitlement had already been settled by the dismissal of those identical claims.

¶33

7.Since, the petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioners before the Madurai Bench of this Court in WP(MD) No.3307 of 2021 , WP(MD) No.6093 of 2020 and WP(MD) No.6014 of 2021 , this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be put on a higher pedestal than the said petitioners. In view of

¶34

Page No.4/6

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 5226 of 2019

¶37

the above, since the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court vide W.P. (MD) Nos. 19112, 19121, 19123 and 18668 of 2020 dated 10.02.2021 , the present writ petition is devoid of merit.

¶38

8.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶39

Sha

¶40

09-12-2025

¶41

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

¶42

1.The Secondary to Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai-09Chennai

¶43

2.The Director General of Police Mylapore, Chennai-04

¶44

3.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai-08