Dismissed¶53

Balakrishnan.S v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC25 Mar 2026WP(MD)/7659/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TNPSC recruitment; PSTM 20% quota claim held to be an afterthought because applicants answered 'No' to PSTM column in application form; WP(MD) Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023; Notification No.18 of 2022 dated 29.07.2022; Press Release No.29/2023 dated 24.03.2023 sought to be quashed; posts of Field Surveyor, Draughtsman and Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman; writ petitions dismissed with no costs; Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; decided 25.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

On perusing the extracts of the applications, this Court was convinced that neither petitioner had claimed any reservation under the PSTM category; both had emphatically answered 'No' against the specific column asking whether they wished to claim reservation under the PSTM category. ¶48

Balakrishnan.S Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP(MD). Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 25/03/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WP(MD). Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023 and WMP(MD)Nos.7128 and 7118 of 2023 In WP(MD)No.7659 of 2023:

Balakrishnan.S.

... Petitioner

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009..

¶11

The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009..

¶12

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

¶13

The Commissioner of Technical Education, Department of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025.. ... Respondents

¶14

1/8

¶15

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

¶16

WP(MD). Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023

¶17

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to the details contained in Press Release No.29/2023 dated 24.03.2023 and quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to offer call letter to the petitioner as per her eligibility by considering the marks secured by the petitioner in the examination conducted on 06.11.2022 for recruitment to the post notified vide Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.07.2022 by the 3rd respondent.

¶18

I n WP(MD). No.7658 of 2023:

Bavish .A.

... Petitioner

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009..

¶23

The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009..

¶24

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,

¶25

Represented by its Secretary, Frazer Bridge Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003..

¶26

The Commissioner of Technical Education, Department of Technical Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025..

¶27

... Respondents

¶28

2/8

¶29

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

¶30

WP(MD). Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023

¶31

PRAYER:- Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to the details contained in Press Release No.29/2023 dated 24.03.2023 and quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to offer call letter to the petitioner as per her eligibility by considering the marks secured by the petitioner in the examination conducted on 06.11.2022 for recruitment to the post notified vide Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.07.2022 by the third respondent.

¶32

In both writ petitions:

¶33

For Petitioner : Mr. K.R.Laxman For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam

¶34

C O M M O N ORDER

¶35

The petitioners in both the writ petitions have participated

¶36

in the recruitment process for filling up of the post of Field Surveyor, Draughtsman in Tamil Nadu Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service and Surveyor-cum-Assistant Draughtsman in Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Subordinate Service pursuant to the Notification No.18 of 2022 issued by the third respondent-TNPSC and became unsuccessful. However, the

¶37

3/8

¶38

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

¶39

WP(MD). Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023

¶40

petitioners made an endeavour before this court to contend that they are eligible for being considered under PSTM 20% quota earmarked for PSTM category and their case should be considered by the third respondent Board under the said category and in case, if they are considered under the said category, the petitioners would come under the zone of consideration.

¶41

However, the learned counsel for the third respondent TNPSC contended that in order to claim the reservation under PSTM category, one has to study from the first standard till pass in the maximum qualifying examination in Tamil medium. But in the instant case, both the petitioners have studied Diploma in Civil Engineering in English medium as there was no Tamil medium of instruction in the said course.

¶42

This Court, on an earlier occasion, after having heard the matter at length, required the third respondent Board to produce

¶43

4/8

¶44

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

¶45

WP(MD). Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023

¶46

the copy of the applications submitted by the petitioners and to ascertain as to whether the petitioners have in fact made any claim in their applications claiming benefit of PSTM reservation.

¶47

Today, when the matters are taken up for consideration, Mr.V.Panneerselvam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for TNPSC, brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have not even claimed for PSTM reservation while submitting their applications in response to the Notification in question. He also brought to the notice of this Court the extract of the applications submitted by the petitioners as available in the typed set annexed in the writ petitions.

¶48

This Court, having perused the same, is convinced that both the petitioners have in fact not claimed any reservation under PSTM category instead they have emphatically said ''No'' as against the specific column to say whether they are inclined to

¶49

5/8

¶50

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

¶51

WP(MD). Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023

¶52

claim reservation against PSTM category or not. In such circumstances, the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is only an afterthought and therefore, the question of considering the petitioners under PSTM category does not arise.

¶53

In the light of the above, this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶54

25.03.2026

¶55

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No CM

¶56

6/8

¶57

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

¶58

WP(MD). Nos.7659 and 7658 of 2023

¶59

To,