S.Saraneshwar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd Respondent, leading to the issuance of the Notice called List of candidates provisionally admitted to physical Certificate Verification (PhaseVIII) Dated 08.04.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct he 3rd Respondent to consider the Writ petitioner for the existing vacancy in accordance with Notification No.9/2024 dated 26.07.2024 Addendum Notification No.9C/2024 dated 30.12.2024 and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa, for Mr.A.Athimoolam For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Bindran, AGP for R.1, 2 and 5. Mr.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah, Standing Counsel for R.3 and R.4.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶24

“to call for the records of the 3rd Respondent, leading to the issuance of

¶25

the Notice called List of candidates provisionally admitted to physical Certificate Verification (Phase-VIII) Dated 08.04.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct he 3rd Respondent to consider the Writ petitioner for the

¶26

__________ Page2 of 8

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 15062 of 2026

¶29

existing vacancy in accordance with Notification No.9/2024 dated 26.07.2024 Addendum Notification No.9C/2024 dated 30.12.2024 and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure.”

¶30

Brief Facts:-

¶31

The Petitioner, aged 28 years, holds B.Pharm (2020) and M.Pharm (2022) degrees from Madras Medical College and is presently working as a Pharmacist at RSRM Hospital, Royapuram.

¶32

The 3rd Respondent had issued Notification No. 09/2024 dated 26.07.2024 for the Combined Technical Services Examination (Non-Interview Posts), notifying 15 vacancies for the post of Drugs Inspector (Post Code 1972), which were distributed community-wise with reservation for PSTM candidates. The Petitioner had applied under the BC (OBC) General category. Subsequently, by Addendum No. 09C/2024 dated 30.12.2024, the vacancies were increased to 18.

¶33

The Petitioner had appeared for the written examination and, as per

¶34

results published on 20.02.2025, secured Overall Rank 17 and Communal Rank

¶35

Page3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 15062 of 2026

¶38

6 under the BC (OBC) General category. He was admitted to and successfully completed Onscreen Certificate Verification.

¶39

Thereafter, a Provisional Selection List comprising 17 candidates was published. As one selected candidate did not join, a vacancy arose. The Petitioner, being next in the communal rotation under BC (OBC) General category, claims entitlement to be considered for the said vacancy. However, by impugned notice dated 08.04.2026, the 3rd Respondent published a list of candidates for Physical Certificate Verification (Phase VIII) scheduled on 17.04.2026, wherein the Petitioner’s name was not included.

¶40

Aggrieved by his exclusion, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the said notice as arbitrary and contrary to the rules governing merit-cum-communal rotation and the terms of the recruitment notification.

¶41

The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that a vacancy arose due to a BC Woman candidate not opting to join and that since women candidates had already been selected in excess of the prescribed quota, the rule of reservation required adjustment in accordance with the roster system, thereby

¶42

Page4 of 8

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 15062 of 2026

¶45

entitling the Petitioner to be considered under the BC General category. He would draw the attention of the Court to the Reserve List/Supplemental List Operation in this regard to say that where the member of woman candidates actually selected is higher than the number of vacancies reserved then the seat should revert to the general category.

¶46

Per contra, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4 would submit that though two BC women candidates were selected, one among them, having secured marks above the General Turn (GT) cut-off, was accommodated in the GT (W) category on merit. Therefore, only one BC Woman candidate was counted against the reserved quota, and no vacancy, as submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner exists within the BC General category.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶48

The only contention of the Petitioner is that a vacancy has arisen due

¶49

to a BC Woman candidate not opting to join and that he is entitled to be considered for appointment against the said vacancy. However, a perusal of the

¶50

Page5 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

WP No. 15062 of 2026

¶53

records would reveal that two candidates belonging to the BC (Women) category were selected, out of whom one candidate, having secured marks above the cut-off prescribed for the General Turn, was accommodated under the General Turn on merit. Consequently, she cannot be counted against the BC (Women) category. Therefore, no vacancy, as claimed by the Petitioner, exists in the BC (OBC) General category to warrant consideration of his candidature. Hence, the Petitioner does not fall within the zone of consideration for appointment.

¶54

In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned notification dated 08.04.2026. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶55

16-04-2026

¶56

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

¶57

SHR

¶58

To

¶59