Dismissed

K.Thirupathi Selvam v. the Tamil Nadu Public Service

Madras HC13 Aug 2025WP(MD)/21084/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SC candidate declared only X Std qualification in TNPSC Group-IV application, was treated as over-aged and excluded from Typist recruitment. He claimed higher qualifications entitled him to exemption from age cap. Held bound by his own declaration; precedents on correcting particulars distinguished; writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed.

K.Thirupathi Selvam Vs the Tamil Nadu Public Service — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.21084 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved On : 01.08.2025

¶4

Pronounced On : 13.08.2025

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE

¶7

W.P. (MD) No.21084 of 2018 and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)No.18875 of 2018

¶9

K. Thirupathi Selvam, S/o Mr. Karuppiah (Late), No.8284 Karrupalagu Middle Street, Puliyangudi - 527 855, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli District ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Represented by its Secretary Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar Park Town Chennai - 600 003.

¶12

The Controller of Examinations Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar Park Town Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER in W.P.:

¶14

To issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the non-selection of the Petitioner in the Written Examination held on 11.02.2018 to the post of

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.21084 of 2018

¶18

Typist coming under Combined Civil Services Examination-IV (GroupIV) called under Notification No.23/2017 dated 14.11.2017, as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondent No.l and 2 to permit the petitioner to participate. in further process of selection within the time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render Justice.

¶19

PRAYER in WMP:

¶20

To pass, an order of Interim Direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to keep one post of Typist under SC category vacant for the petitioner, pending disposal of the instant writ petition and thus render justice.

¶21

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthik, Advocate, for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.V.Panner Selvam, Advocate

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste. He holds

¶25

S.S.L.C., Higher Secondary, B.A. (History) from Tamil Nadu Open University, Senior Grade Typewriting in Tamil, High Speed Typewriting

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.21084 of 2018

¶29

in English, and a Government Certificate in Computer on Office Automation.

¶30

Notification No. 23/2017 dated 14.11.2017, issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), called for applications for the post of Typist under the Combined Civil Services Examination–IV (Group-IV). The minimum educational qualification prescribed was S.S.L.C. or its equivalent, with an upper age limit of 35 years for SC/ST candidates as on 01.07.2017. The Age Limit clause provided in the said Notification as per Note-2 under para (5) (A)(2), stated that there was no maximum age limit for SC/ST candidates possessing higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed.

¶31

The petitioner applied online, but in the qualification column, he declared “X Std” as his educational qualification. Based on that declaration, the online system treated him as an SC candidate with only the minimum qualification, and the age cap of 35 years applied. On the crucial date, 01.07.2017, he was aged 35 years, 3 months, rendering him ineligible.

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.21084 of 2018

¶35

The petitioner wrote the written examination on 11.02.2018 and

¶36

scored 207 marks. He contends that several SC candidates with lower marks were called for certificate verification. He claims he should have been exempted from the age limit under Note-2, as he actually possessed higher qualifications, and that the online form did not permit entry of those higher qualifications.

¶37

The respondents, in their counter affidavit, state that the recruitment process was fully automated; eligibility was determined solely on the particulars furnished by the applicant in the online form. Since the petitioner declared only “X Std” as qualification, he fell under the capped category and was automatically excluded as over-aged. The “no maximum age limit” clause could not be applied without altering the qualification particulars declared in the application.

¶38

The law is settled that recruitment is governed by the terms of the notification, and an applicant is bound by the particulars furnished in his application. Eligibility must be determined with reference to the data as on the last date for submission of applications. A candidate cannot,

¶39

4/7

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.21084 of 2018

¶42

after the process has advanced, seek to substitute or supplement particulars so as to secure eligibility.

¶43

The precedents relied on by the petitioner (Vishnu Bargavi v. Director, NEET Exam; S. Sabarimalai Madha v. Teachers Recruitment Board) are distinguishable. Those cases dealt with correction of community status or similar particulars where eligibility itself was not defeated by the original entry, and where rectification caused no prejudice to other candidates. Here, the petitioner’s declaration of “X Std” directly governed the applicable age limit, and by that declaration, he was over-aged and ineligible.

¶44

The plea that the online form lacked provision to enter higher qualifications is unsupported by contemporaneous complaint or evidence. Even assuming such difficulty, the petitioner did not raise it before the last date for submission of applications or seek rectification through the prescribed process.

¶45

In these circumstances, the exclusion of the petitioner from further stages of selection was in strict conformity with the notification

¶46

5/7

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.21084 of 2018

¶49

and the automated recruitment process. No arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 or 16 is made out.

¶50

Further, owing to the efflux of time and the completion of the selection process pursuant to Notification No. 23/2017 dated 14.11.2017, the relief sought in the writ petition no longer survives for adjudication.

¶51

The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶52

Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶53

13.08.2025

¶54

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

¶55

¶56

6/7

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.(MD) No.21084 of 2018

¶59

DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

¶60

¶61

Pre-delivery Judgment made in W.P. (MD) No.21084 of 2018

¶62

13.08.2025

¶63

7/7

¶64

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

K.Thirupathi Selvam v. the Tamil Nadu Public Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Thirupathi Selvam v. the Tamil Nadu Public Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Gousik Vs Alphonse

S.Sivasamy Vs v.R.K.Rajendran (Died), 1) Maheswari

Rajagopal Vs Girija

M.Balasubramani, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Amirtham Vs Vadivel (Died), 1.Senthilkumar @ Veerakumar

P.Paulthurai Vs the State of Tamil Nadu