Dismissed¶¶38

Rajasekar .N v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Nov 2025WP(MD)/19895/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PSTM reservation; in-service candidate exclusion; Clause 4 recruitment notification; TNUSRB Notification No.01/2022 dated 08.03.2022; writ of certiorarified mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Rule 2(c); Division Bench ruling W.A.No. 2552 of 2025 (DGP/Chairman, TNUSRB vs. S.Mohamed Aslam) followed; clarification dated 08.08.2023 rejected; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Abdul Quddhose J.; dismissed on 19.11.2025; no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos.14483 & 14485 of 2022 closed.

What did the court decide?

This Court, being bound by the Division Bench decision in W.A.No. 2552 of 2025, held that PSTM category preference is not applicable to those who are already in service under the State; consequently the petitioner, an in-service candidate, cannot claim eligibility to apply under the PSTM Category. ¶¶37

Rajasekar .N Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether Clause 4 of the impugned recruitment notification dated 08.03.2022 is arbitrary and illegal insofar as PSTM reservation is not extended to in-service candidates, and whether the petitioner, being an in-service candidate, is eligible to apply for the subject post under the PSTM Category. +1 more

¶¶25

Court's answer

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's contention that he remains eligible under the PSTM Category in view of the respondents' clarification dated 08.08.2023 does not hold water, since this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.

¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Clause 4 of the recruitment notification (Notification No.01/2022 dated 08.03.2022) issued by the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, insofar as PSTM reservation was not extended to in-service candidates; petitioner sought certiorarified mandamus to quash Clause 4, to apply PSTM reservation to in-service candidates, and to permit him to participate in the physical test. Held: this Court is bound by the Division Bench decision in Director General of Police / Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board vs. S.Mohamed Aslam and others (W.A.No. 2552 of 2025, dated 08.10.2025), which categorically held that PSTM category preference is not applicable to those already in service under the State; the petitioner's reliance on the respondents' clarification dated 08.08.2023 could not prevail against the binding precedent. Writ petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19895 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.11.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.19895 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.14483 & 14485 of 2022

N.Rajasekar

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Chennai-600 009

¶12

2.The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus Egmore, Chennai-8

¶13

3.The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus Egmore, Chennai-8

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.19895 of 2022

¶17

4.The Director General of Police O/o.The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Chennai-600 004 ... Respondents

¶18

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his Notification No.01/2022 dated 08.03.2022 and quash the same as illegal in so far as Clause 4 is concerned and consequentially to direct the respondents to apply the PSTM reservation in respect of the in-service candidates as well and consequentially to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the further phase of recruitment by allowing him to participate in the physical test as provided to them within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohammed Zamil for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Additional Advocate General-II assisted by Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶20

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.19895 of 2022

¶24

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned recruitment notification dated 08.03.2022, issued by the third respondent.

¶25

2. According to the petitioner, Clause-4 of the impugned recruitment notification is arbitrary and illegal. According to him, PSTM reservation under the impugned recruitment notification applies to him as well. Being an in-service candidate, the petitioner claims that he is also eligible to apply for the subject post as per the impugned recruitment notification dated 08.03.2022 under the PSTM Category.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that a clarification has been issued by the office of the respondents through their communication dated 08.08.2023 that if the candidate belongs to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes, even an in-service candidate is eligible to apply for the subject post under the PSTM Category.

¶27

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to a decision of

¶28

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.19895 of 2022

¶31

the Division Bench of this Court dated 08.10.2025, in the case of the Director

¶32

General of Police / Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board vs. S.Mohamed Aslam and others , rendered in W.A.No. 2552 of 2025 and would submit that the Division Bench has categorically held that in-service candidate cannot apply under the PSTM Category. He referred to the relevant portion of the said decision, which makes it clear that PSTM category preference is not applicable to those, who are already in service under the State. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is re-produced hereunder:

¶33

“From the above statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements, it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the PSTM reservation is to provide employment opportunities to unemployed youth under the State. It is not intended to promote or assist individuals who are already in government employment, whether for advancement within the same department or for securing a better position in a different department under the State. Hence PSTM preference is not applicable to those who are already in service under the State as defined in Rule 2(c).”

¶34

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.19895 of 2022

¶37

5. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner once again reiterates that in view of the clarification issued by the office of the respondents through their communication dated 08.08.2023, the petitioner is still eligible to apply for the post even though he is an in-service candidate, the said argument will not hold water, since this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, in the aforesaid decision, has categorically held that PSTM category preference is not applicable to those, who are already in service under the State. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner as raised in this writ petition.

¶38

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

19.11.2025

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶41

krk

¶42

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶43

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