Madras High Court
R.Boominathan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
Author: V.Parthiban
Bench: V.Bharathidasan, V.Parthiban
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 07.02.2019
Delivered on: 27.02.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.NOs.27127, 27156 and 27225 of 2018
and W.M.P.Nos.31563, 31658 & 31661 of 2018
W.P.No.27127 of 2018:
R.Boominathan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
rep. by its Secretary,
Frazer Bridge road, Park Town,
VOC Nagar, Chennai-600 003.
3. The Director of Legal Studies,
Purasawalkam, Chennai-10. .. Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Tamilarasan
For Respondents : Mr.C.N.G.Niraimathi,
Standing Counsel for TNPSC
Mr.E.Elumalai, GA for R1
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to
the impugned proceedings nil in respect of petitioner's
Registration No.020002091 dated 5.10.2018 passed by the 2nd
respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2nd
respondent to declare the result of the petitioner in respect of
the petitioner's Registration No.020002091.
W.P.No.27156 of 2018:
Senthilkumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar,
Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
2. The Director of Legal Studies,
Purasawalkam, Chennai-10.
3. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-104. .. Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran
For Respondents : Mr.C.N.G.Niraimathi,
Standing Counsel for TNPSC
Mr.B.Vijay,
Standing Counsel for R3
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of
Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner
under Non-PSTM candidature while deciding final selection
list based on the over all marks secured by the petitioner in
the civil judge examination 2018.
W.P.No.27225 of 2018:
R.Devaraj .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
rep. by its Secretary,
Frazer Bridge Road, Chennai-600 001.
3. The Director of Legal Studies,
Purasawalkam, Chennai-10.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
4. The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-104. ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.E.Elumalai, GA for R1
Mr.C.N.G.Niraimathi,
Standing Counsel for TNPSC
Mr.B.Vijay,
Standing Counsel for R4
PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in
proceedings nil in respect of Registration No.170002242 dated
5.10.2018 on the file of 2nd respondent, quash the same as
illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and consequently
direct the 2nd respondent to declare the result of the petitioner.
COMMON ORDER
V.PARTHIBAN, J.
All the above three Writ Petitions raise a common issue for consideration before this Bench as follows:
“Whether the claim of the petitioners can be considered for appointment of Civil Judge against respective communal quota' reserved for http://www.judis.nic.in 5 appointment, in the face of the fact that these writ petitioners, while applying to the call given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Civil Judge vide Notification dated 9.4.2018, have indicated in their application forms that they had acquired the basic degree through Tamil Medium of Instruction and thereby led to believe the Public Service Commission that they were claiming status as 'Persons Studied in Tamil Medium' (PSTM) and consequently, leading to rejection of their applications?”.
2. The facts and circumstances, necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petitions are briefly stated hereunder:
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'The Commission”) has published a Notification on 09.04.2018, calling for applications for the appointment to the post of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service in terms of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules 2007. In the Notification, as many as 320 vacancies were notified to be filled up against various categories as mentioned in the Notification. The present Writ http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Petitioners have responded to the Notification by submitting their applications. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.27127 of 2018 and W.P.No.27156 of 2018 belong to Scheduled Caste category and the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.27225 of 2018 belongs to BC category. All the Writ Petitioners have uniformly indicated in their application forms that they studied their basic courses in Tamil Medium. As per the Notification of the Commission, selection consists of three stages, viz., i) Preliminary Examination (Objective Type)(OMR Method); ii) Main Examination (Descriptive Type) and iii) Viva-
Voce Test. All these three Writ Petitioners participated in the Preliminary Examination which was held on 09.06.2018 and were successful when the results were published on 11.07.2018 and thereafter, the Writ Petitioners participated in the Main Examination which was held on 11.08.2018 and 12.08.2018. The results of the Main Examination were declared on 19.09.2018 and the Writ Petitioners were successful and were subsequently, called for Interview which was conducted between 27.09.2018 and 05.10.2018. The http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Commission published final results on 05.10.2018. In the final selection, 209 candidates were declared as selected and the names of the selected candidates were published in G.O.4(D) No.56 Home (Court-I) Department dated 28.12.2018. However, the names of these Writ Petitioners were not found in the final results published on 05.10.2018 or the subsequent selection list vide above said Government Order.
3. When the Writ Petitioners were called for Interview on various dates between 27.09.2018 and 5.10.2018, their Certificates were subjected to verification in support of their respective claims towards reservation. However, they were informed by the Commission that their candidature could not be considered against the vacancies earmarked for PSTM since no Certificates were produced by them to that effect. At this, the candidates informed the Commission through their representations that it was a fact that the Writ Petitioners have written the examinations in Tamil only for all the years and they were successful and obtained their Law Degrees. http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Therefore, they have indicated in their respective applications that they studied in Tamil Medium, with a bona fide belief and impression that studying the course and writing the examinations in Tamil Medium would mean and equivalent to studying in Tamil Medium of Instruction. When these Writ Petitioners were informed that unless the Certificates by the competent authority were produced certifying that they studied in the Tamil Medium of Instruction, they cannot be considered against the vacancies earmarked for PSTM quota. However, at this stage, the Writ Petitioners appeared to have informed the Commission that even without they being considered against quota reserved for PSTM, they can still be considered against their respective communal quota, in which event, they would come within the zone of consideration and eventual appointment.
4. According to these Writ Petitioners, though number of vacancies were notified as 320, yet finally only 209 candidates were selected and therefore, there are 111 vacancies yet to be http://www.judis.nic.in 9 filled up. According to these Writ Petitioners, the vacancies are still available in the respective communal quota as that many candidates who participated in the Main Examination could not become successful. At the same time, these Writ Petitioners were successful and reached final stage of selection and therefore, they can be considered for appointment to the post of Civil Judge by applying communal roster on the basis of their community status.
5. All the respective learned counsels appearing for the Writ Petitioners heavily contended that the application forms did not specifically mention that studying in Tamil and writing examinations in Tamil will not be equivalent to pursuing he Course in Tamil Medium of Instruction and when the candidates filled up the forms, they were under bona fide belief and impression that they had undergone the Law Course only in Tamil Medium as admittedly, the candidates have studied and written Examinations in Tamil. In such circumstances, the candidates filled up the application forms http://www.judis.nic.in 10 that they had studied in Tamil Medium of Instruction without knowing the implication of such declaration. However, it appears finally that mere undergoing the courses in Tamil and writing Examinations in Tamil, will not keep them on par with PSTM and claim quota for PSTM. According to the learned counsels, such distinction between the persons studying in Tamil and writing the Examinations in Tamil and the Persons Studied in Tamil as Medium of Instruction, was lost sight of inadvertently and therefore, a bona fide mistake had been committed by these candidates in filling up their application forms. In any event, these candidates have been successful in all stages of selection and awaiting final results of selection.
6. The learned counsels for the Writ Petitioners would also submit that the question of undergoing Law Courses in Tamil as a Medium of Instruction does not arise for the reason that none of the Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu impart legal education in Tamil as a Medium of Instruction. The only College that imparts legal education in Tamil is http://www.judis.nic.in 11 Madurai Law College and even there, it appears to be a dispute as to when the course in Tamil was started and whether the same has been in vogue even now in the said institution. There appears to be different versions in regard to imparting of legal education in Tamil even in Madurai Law College much less other colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. According to the learned counsels, in Law Colleges, there has always been practice that the students are allowed to write the examinations in Tamil and it is also fact that the classes were taken in Tamil by the faculty. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the candidates like these Writ Petitioners had gone through the Courses in Tamil and in such event, they were under bona fide belief that the entire Law course had been undergone and completed in Tamil which had prompted these candidates to indicate in their applications that the mode of study being Tamil as Medium of Instruction. In any case, in the absence of Certificate of PSTM, these Writ Petitioners are claiming the right to be considered against their respective communal quota since admittedly they have been successful http://www.judis.nic.in 12 in earlier stage of selection and have reached the stage of Viva-Voce Test. The learned counsels would also submit that no prejudice would be caused to any of the candidates who participated in the selection if the claims of these Writ Petitioners are considered against their respective reservation quota by not applying the Horizontal reservation, namely, PSTM. This so because out of 320 vacancies notified, only 209 candidates have been selected and remaining 111 vacancies are available in respect of several categories including the categories to which, the present Writ Petitioners belong to. The learned counsels would submit that it was not a conscious effort on behalf of the candidates to misrepresent to the Commission about their status and it was an act of inadvertence, honestly believing their mode of studies was in Tamil. In the absence of any deliberate or intentional act on the part of these Writ Petitioners, the Commission ought to consider their claims as if that these candidates are not claiming quota against PSTM and if they were otherwise qualified, they ought to be considered for appointment along http://www.judis.nic.in 13 with 209 candidates.
7. The Commission cannot rigidly bind the petitioners down on the basis of innocuous declaration by them in the application form. In fact, two of the candidates in W.P.Nos.27127 and 27225 of 2018 had already written letters to the Commission on 3.10.2018 and 5.10.2018 that they were not claiming PSTM status. Therefore, the learned counsels would implore this Court to direct the Commission to consider these petitioners against their respective communal quota and if they were found otherwise eligible, they ought to be selected along with already selected 209 candidates.
8. On behalf of the respondents, strong objections were raised, stating that the conversion of category of reservation is not permissible at all that too at the end of the selection process. According to the learned counsels appearing for 2nd and 4th respondents, in the Notification No.08/2018 dated 09.04.2018, in Sub-Clause (E) of Clause 15, it was clearly http://www.judis.nic.in 14 mentioned as follows:
“15. INFORMATION/INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES:
A. TO D. .... ..... ..... .....
E. In G.O.(Ms.) No.145, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 30.09.2010, and G.O.(Ms.)No.40 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 30.04.2014, the Government have issued orders to fill 20% of all vacancies in direct recruitment on preferential basis to persons who studied the prescribed qualifications in Tamil Medium. The 20% reservation of vacancies on preferential allotment to Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) will apply to this recruitment. Applicants claiming this reservation must have studied the prescribed qualifications for the post in Tamil Medium and should have the certificate for the same. Having written the University Examinations or Competitive Examinations in Tamil language alone will not qualify the candidate for claiming this reservation. If the Applicants with PSTM Certificate are not available for selection for http://www.judis.nic.in 15 appointment against reserved turn, such turn shall be filled by Non-PSTM Applicants but belonging to the respective communal category.
The PSTM certificate shall be produced by the applicant in prescribed format / proforma available in the Commission’s website at ‘www.tnpsc.gov.in’ which shall be obtained from the Head of the Institution and to be submitted when called for by the Commission."
9. From the above, it is clear that writing of University Examinations or Competitive Examinations in Tamil language alone will not qualify the candidates for claiming reservation under PSTM quota. In this case, in more than one column of the application, these Writ Petitioners filled up the particulars asserting that they are claiming PSTM status and once such assertion was conveyed through their own act, it was too late in the day for these Writ Petitioners to turn around and claim for conversion of different category of reservation when they were not in a position to produce any certificate as having gone through the Course in Tamil Medium of Instruction. If http://www.judis.nic.in 16 such conversion is entertained at the belated stage, it will open flood gates of several other claims from unsuccessful candidates and it will undo the entire selection process hitherto undertaken by the Commission.
10. The learned counsels would also point out a fact that in the Notification, it is also clearly mentioned in Sub-Clause (N) of Clause 15 as under:
"15. Information/Instructions to the Candidates:
(N) Incomplete applications and
applications containing wrong claims or
incorrect particulars relating to category of reservation/other basic qualifications/ eligibility/age/communal categories /educational qualification/PSTM/physical qualification and other basic eligibility criteria will be liable for rejection."
The above Clause clearly mentioned that any wrong http://www.judis.nic.in 17 information given in the application, is liable for rejection. Admittedly, these Writ Petitioneres have given wrong information knowingly or unknowingly and the applications had been entertained by the petitioners on the basis of declaration right from the preliminary stage of filtering the applications allowing the candidates to participate in the Examination and thereafter the main Examination and eventually allowed to participate in the Oral Test. When the candidates were filtered on the basis of their declaration, it is certainly not open to these Writ Petitioners to request for conversion in different category of reservation than what they had originally indicated in their applications. If such request is entertained by the Commission, that would completely unsettle the selection process and it will only pave the way to similar claims in future. According to the learned counsels, the Commission is not only entrusted with the task of recruiting the Civil Judges, but also all the public appointment in the State of Tamil Nadu and if such claims are to be entertained, that will set a wrong precedent for other http://www.judis.nic.in 18 selections also.
11. The learned counsels for the Commission as well as for the High Court, would submit that once the candidates have communicated their mode of study as Tamil Medium with their eyes wide open, they ought not to be allowed to change their position and claim for different status when they had realized their position that they could not get PSTM certificate. The Writ Petitioners having given wrong information in their applications, cannot be shown any indulgence by this Court even assuming that they have come within the zone of consideration for appointment as per their performace in the selection process. If the claims of these Writ Petitioners are considered, then the Instruction as given in Clause 15(E) will lose its sanctity and would become unenforceable. Such situation does not augur well in any selection process conducted by the Commission. According to the learned counsels appering for the Commission, the rule of reservation is applied right from the initial stage of Preliminary http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Examination and such application is continued at every stage of selection, in which event, PSTM status as claimed by the Writ Petitiners assume larger significace vis-a-vis success at every stage of selection. Therefore, if these candidates were to be considered against different quota, the initial success at the Preliminary Stage and thereafter, after the Main Written Examination need to be reviewed, which event would only result in unsettling the entire selection process. These candidates having indicated wrong/false information, which led to their participation in the selection, cannot expect the Commission to consider their candidature overlooking such declaration.
12. According to the learned Counsels, even assuming that the information as provided in the application forms done unwittingly without knowing the implications, nevertheless it should be seen that a candidate who is responding to the selection for the post of Civil Judge ought to know the implications of his information particularly, the candidates, http://www.judis.nic.in 20 namely, the Writ Petitioners who are holders of Degrees of Law. In any case, the Commission cannot be expected to make a distinction between 'whether a candidate has innocently filled up his application form' or 'deliberately done' in order to participate in the selection and once the information is found to be false/wrong, the matter should rest at that and the Commission must be free to take a call on such candidates. In this case, the Commission had taken the call and rejected the selection of these Writ Petitioners. Therefore, this Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to interfere with the decision taken by the Commission when the decision was taken only on the basis of the Instructions to the candidates, issued by the Commission which cannot be held unreasonable or unjust, calling for interference of this Court.
13. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in response, would submit that the contentions put forth on behalf of the respondents, namely, the present claim of http://www.judis.nic.in 21 conversion to a different category of reservation would upset the selection and unsettle the same, cannot be countenanced both on law and on facts for the simple reason that out of 320 vacancies notified, only 209 candidates were selected and admittedly, 111 vacancies remain to be filled in. According to the information, unfilled vacancies are available against respective communal quota for which, the petitioenrs are staking their claim and in which event, their consideration against the general quota of communal reservation cannot affect the slection which was already made. Further, their consideration for selection will also not affect other candidates who participated in the selection since the candidates who were otherwise not selected in the final stage of selection, were unsuccessful in the selection process. Therefore, their rights can never be said to be prejudiced, whereas, these Writ Ptitioners have been sucessful in all the stages of selection, but for application of PSTM status, they appeared to be otherwise eligible against the respective communal quota. When large number of vacancies are available which are http://www.judis.nic.in 22 unfilled due to paucity of successful candidates, it is nothing wrong to consider these candidates de hors the factum of these candidates filling up their applications indicating their mode of study in Tamil. By considering these candidates, the merit is not going to be compromised and there cannot be any futher claim also in view of less number of candidates who were eventually selected than the notified vacancies.
14. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for TNPSC and learned Panel Advocate for High Court.
15. A singular issue which emerges for consideration on the basis of above narrative is, whether it is permissible for these petitioners to seek considereation of their candidature in the respective communal quota and not against PSTM quota at the tail-end of the selection process commenced and completed by the Commission.
16. It is an admitted fact that the present three Writ http://www.judis.nic.in 23 Petitioners have indicated in their applications that their mode of study while obtaining the Degrees in Law was Tamil medium of Instruction. However, it is also admitted fact that none of the Writ Petitioners had undergone the course in Tamil medium of Instruction. As regards the Writ Petitiners in W.P.Nos.27127 and 27225 of 2018, their submission was that they had written examinations in Tamil, but were not claiming any PSTM status for they being considered against the said quota. As far as the petitioner in W.P.No.27156 of 2018 is concerned, a part of the Law Course of 5 year Law Degree, i.e. 2Nd, 3rd and 4th years was undergone through Tamil medium while 1st and 5th year was in English medium and thus, the entire Course had not been studied in the Tamil medium and a Certificate as having studied in Tamil medium has been issued to the candidate. In any case, his claim could not be considered against PSTM since as per the conditions as prescribed by the Commission, the entire course ought to have been studied in Tamil medium.
http://www.judis.nic.in 24
17. These three Writ Petitioners have ofcourse indicated quite clearly that their mode of study of Law Course was in Tamil medium. However, ultimately, during the certificate verification at the time of Oral Test, they could not produce PSTM Certificate. Therefore, they were rightly disqualified by the Commission since apparently the Commission has allowed them to participate in the selection process on the basis of original declaration in the application form. However, the point which needs to be decided presently at the end of selection process is to see whether the consideration of these candidtes against their respective communal quota without applying the horizontal reservation of PSTM quota would unsettle or undermine the entire selection or any unsuccessful candidates in the selection would be affected retrospectively in the event of this Court directing the Commission to consider the candidtes against their respective communal quota on the basis of their performance, ignoring their declaration in their application forms. Although it was elaborately argued on behalf of the Commission and on behalf http://www.judis.nic.in 25 of the High Court that consideration of these candidates for conversion of their request to a different category of reservation would have a serious impact on the entire selection process right from the stage of Preliminary Examination, but when the submissions to that effect if critically examined, would point to the fact that such submission about a negative impact may hold good only if all the notified vacancies have been filled up. In the instant case, admittedly, out of 320 vacancies, only 209 candidates have been finally selected. It is also admitted fact that remaining unfilled vacancies in respect of reserved categories, several vacancies are available among the total 111 vacancies which are unfilled. The categories that these petitioners are claiming for consideration would also fall within the vacancies unfilled. When enough number of vacancies are available in the reserved categories in which these Writ Petitioners belong to, this Court is unable to see what is the impediment or difficulty for the Commission to consider their candidature in non- PSTM quota by ignoring their act of filling the forms http://www.judis.nic.in 26 incorrectly on the basis of wrong understanding of the contents of the application.
18. It appears from the columns as contained in the application forms that the same give rise to an ambiguous understanding in the matter of responding to such column by the candidates concerned. There is always a likelihood of canidates committing genuine errors in filling up such columns particularly in the instant case where these Writ Petitioners have admittedly learnt the course in Tamil and written examinations also in Tamil. In such situation, one could not expect that the candidate concerned should apply his/her mind critically with incisive mind. In such situation, it could always be possible that the candidates may take things for granted that afterall they had gone through the Course in Tamil as they believed so and was also a fact. In such circumstances, unfortunately, these candidates probably could not differentiate between the mode of study as meant by the Commission and the fact of study in the vernacular http://www.judis.nic.in 27 language. Therefore, it could be possible for these candidates bona fide filling the forms on the basis of their understanding and probably believing that they could eventually obtain certificates from the institutions where they had undergone their course of study in support of their claims.
19. In any event, cumulatively it has to be seen that these Writ Petitioners, as materials would disclose, have not misrepresented or misled the Commission deliberately or intentionally for their selection. An inadvertant mistake committed by these candidates cannot, in the opinion of this Court, be construed as false or wrong information as made out to be by the Commission or the High Court. In order to accuse someone of falsehood, there must be an intent on the person concerned to defraud. Even for the wrong entry in the application form presupposes mentioning of non-fact. In this case, it appears that the candidates have only mentioned about the study undergone by them in respect of Law course in Tamil, namely, that they have written University examinations in Tamil, which was not disputed. Therefore, the http://www.judis.nic.in 28 claim of these petitioners cannot be placed within the rigidity of instructions issued in Clause 15 of the Notification dated 9.4.2018 by the Commission. In such situation, it is incumbent upon the Courts to ensure that an inadvertant error committed by a candidate cannot result in ultimate punishment of being denied consideration of candidature particularly for a coveted appointment to the post of a Civil Judge of the Subordinate judiciary. This is more so, when the same is viewed in respect of the fact that these writ petitioners have qualified themselves and have been successful in all stages of selection and have reached and touched the winning post and yet, denied eventual selection on the ground that these petitioners had advantegeous start. Such contention on the part of the Service Commission could be appreciated when the initial process of selection had any nexus in applying the horizontal reservation of PSTM and only because of PSTM status applying to these candidates, they were permitted to participate in the final stage of selection. As far as the instant case on hand is concerned, from the records, it could be seen http://www.judis.nic.in 29 that PSTM reservation could not have been applied in the initial selection and such claim for PSTM status became relevant only when these candidates reached the final stage of selection, namely, Viva-Voce test.
20. Moreover, when ultimately, only 209 candidates were declared to have been qualified for appointment out of 320 notified vacancies, the contention that the change of category of reservation of these candidates will have far reaching consequences, is far fetched and unacceptable.
21. During the course of hearing, this Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel for the Commission to furnish copies of the marks obtained by these candidates and on such direction, the individual marks secured by these candidates produced before this Court and the same were taken note of. Although on behalf of the Commission, cut off marks was quoted in respect of each category of communal or other reservation, ultimately, in view of the admitted fact that http://www.judis.nic.in 30 number of vacancies (111) remain to be filled, in which several categories of reservation have a considerable share in the total number of unfiled vacancies, in which event, the question of prescribing cut off marks would not arise at all. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the so-called cut off marks that has been prescribed by the Commission would only mean that the cut off marks secured by the last person selected in that respective category, in which event, these writ petitioners who were already successful in all stages of selection, can be accommodated in the respective categories, since admittedly number of vacancies are available both against SC as well as BC categories.
22. This Court besides ought to consider peculiar situation in respect of present selection, as hardly any college in the State of Tamil Nadu has medium of instruction in Tamil as far as the Law couses are concerned. One exception being Madurai Law College, where it appears that a G.O. was issued as early as in 1978 and for some period, there was medium of http://www.judis.nic.in 31 instrution in Tamil and this Court in few decisions has recognized the said factual situation and directed the University/Institution concerned to issue PSTM certificate to the candidates who underegone their course in Madurai Law College. Even in Madurai Law College, the actual situatio in regard to medium of Instruction in Tamil appears to be nebulous and in fact, the Courts have passed divergent orders on this aspect. Therefore, in selection to Subordinate Judiciary, the consideration of PSTM candidates would only mean the quota is thrown upon only to candidates who had undergone the Law Course in Madurai Law college, even assuming that Madurai Law college imparts legal education in Tamil medium factually. When such is the situation in the State of Tamil Nadu as far as legal education is concerned, this Court is unable to see the object behind calling for candidates belonging to PSTM category in furtherance of the policy of the State of Tamil Nadu. However, the policy of the State is to have nexus to the objective it seeks to achieve, but unfortunately in the present case, the object of providing 20% http://www.judis.nic.in 32 horizontal reservation to PSTM candidates could hardly be achieved or not achieved at all at best. That being the case, this Court is of the conscious view that the impugned selection will not be affected at all and will not cause any prejudice to the successful candidates who have been declared and also the unsuccessful candidates who failed to make it to the end. Therefore in such circumstances, this Court has to necessarily take a call and ensure that ends of justice is met in granting relief to these petitioners.
23. Although the contention as put forth on behalf of the Commission as well as on behalf of the High Court regarding entertaining such request by the candidates cannot be brushed aside altogether as that would only encourage potential candidates in future to furnish information in the application forms casually without due regards to its authencity and truthfullness, yet in the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court feels that equitable consieration ought to outweigh the procedural rigidity. Such http://www.judis.nic.in 33 consideration is one of the hallmarks of the extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, this Court in order to enforce sublime constitutional principle of equity as special case, is inclined to allow the Writ Petitions.
24. In view of the above, the Writ Petitions are allowed and there shall be a direction to the Commission to consider the claim of the Writ Petitioners in the respective communal quota sans PSTM and if the petitioners are otherwise fit for selection and appointment, their claims may be considered for issuance of appointment orders along with already selected 209 candidates. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.
25. As regards the issue relating to the availability of Tamil Medium courses in the State Law Colleges is concerned, as stated above, there appears to be a kind of uncertainity as there has been no concrete materials made available to the http://www.judis.nic.in 34 Courts for coming to a conclusion one way or the other. The Courts both single Judges and Division Benches which dealt with the issue, have rendered their decisions either on the basis of inadequate information made available or on the basis of certain presumption. After adverting to the various decisions by this Bench, it is found that none of the decisions either by Division Bench or by the learned single Judge is an authoritative pronouncement in regard to availability of Tamil medium of courses in Law colleges run by the State. Moreover, there appears to be a conflict of decisions by two Division Benchs on the aspect even in regard to Tamil medium of Instruction in respet of Madurai Law College. In such situation, it appears that this Court in future, the issue whether Tamil medium of Instruction is available in State Law Colleges is to be authoritatively pronounced for all the stakeholders concerned to claim quota. This is particularly so when the Government of Tamil Nadu earmarked 20% reservation for PSTM candidates and this issue will quite often be raised calling for adjudication.
http://www.judis.nic.in 35
26. In 2013, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order in W.P.No.25835 of 2012 dated 18.4.2013 which was reported in "(2013) 4 MLJ 433 (T.Sergia Bindu versus Secretary to the Government, Home (Couirts-I) Department, Chennai and others)", wherein, the issue as to whether Tamil medium of Instruction was available in Madurai Law College was placed for consideration and the Division Bench of this Court has held that in view of G.O.Ms.No.1492 Education Department dated 10.8.1978, Tamil Medium of Instruction was introduced in Government Law College, Madurai and therefore, the Division Bench has held that there was a Tamil Medium of Instruction and that the Government Order was very much in operation and there was indeed a Tamil Medium of Instruction in Madural Law College in B.G.L.Course. The operative portion of the findings rendered by the Division Bench as found in paragraphs 12 to 17, are extracted hereunder:
"12. The next important question arising for our consideration in this matter is that whether http://www.judis.nic.in 36 there is any Tamil medium course during the relevant point of time at the Government Law College, Madurai. It is pertinent to note that certain Government orders were brought to our notice, namely,
(i)G.O.Ms.No.1492, Education Department dated 10.08.1978;
(ii)G.O.Ms.No.280, Law (LS) Department dated 14.11.2006; and
(iii)G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department, dated 30.09.2010
13. The first Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.No.1492, Education Department dated 10.08.1978 reads hereunder:
"ORDER:-
Sanction is recorded to the introduction of Tamil Medium in the Law College Madurai from the academic year 1978-79. To begin with, the Director of Legal Studies in requested to start one section in Tamil medium in the I B.G.L. Class in the Law College, Madurai.
2. The Government also sanction one post of Junior Professor in the scale of pay of Rs.1100-50-1600 with Dearness Allowance and other allowances at the rate admissible from time to time and one post of Part time Lecturer in the scale of pay of Rs.500-20- 700-25-900 without allowances for a period of one year from the date of employment.
3. The expenditure is debitable to "277.Education-E. University and other http://www.judis.nic.in 37 Higher Education ac. Government Colleges I. Non-Plan AE. Law College 01. Salaries"
(D.P.G.277E, AGAE G104).
4. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its J.O.No.87388/E1/78-1 dt.8.8.78.
(By order of the Governor) Sd/-.
COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT."
A reading of the above said Government Order makes it crystal clear that the Government introduces Tamil medium in the Law College, Madurai for the academic year 1978-79 and the Director of Legal Studies was requested to start one section in Tamil medium in the first year B.G.L class in the Law College, Madurai.
14. The second Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.No.280, Law (LS) Department dated 14.11.2006 reads that the incentive amount given to the students studying in Tamil medium was increased from Rs.180/- to Rs.400/- from the academic year 1999-2000. It is also stated in the same Government Order that there was increase in the students studying law course in Tamil for 3 years as well as for 5 years B.L. Degree course. It is also seen that in the said Government Order, a separate section was started for the Tamil medium course.
http://www.judis.nic.in 38
15. A reading of the above said two Government Orders clearly shows that there was Tamil medium in 5 years B.L. Degree Course in Madurai Law College. The said Government Orders are very much in operation as on date, but the fact remains that the petitioner has not challenged the said Government orders.
16. The fourth respondent, namely, the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University categorically stated in Para 5 of its counter as hereunder:
"5.The contents in G.O.Ms.No.280, Law (LS) Department, dated 14.11.2006 reveal instructions of Law through Tamil Medium up to 2001-2002 and revival of the same from the year 2006-2007 at Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai. The Government of Tamil Nadu vide Government Order Ms.No.1492, Education Department, dated 30.08.1978 (submitted in annexure) extended the scheme to facilitate the students get instruction in Tamil Medium at Government Law College, Madurai also. The G.O.Ms.No.280, Law (LS) Department, dated 14.11.2006 (submitted in annexure) has been providing incentive to the students joining the course. The Scheme devised by the Government has been implemented through the Director of Legal Studies. The University is not in receipt of any records pertaining to us."
In the counter affidavit, it is also stated by the fourth respondent that the University does not issue any certificate indicating the medium of instruction to any candidate and the said http://www.judis.nic.in 39 submission substantiates the contention of the third respondent to the effect that she is not possessing any certificate to show that she had underwent B.L. Degree course in Tamil Language in Madurai Law College.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the information furnished to the queries made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act and as per the reply given by the Public Information Officer and the Director of Legal Studies dated 25.03.2013, there is no Tamil medium in 5 years B.L. Degree course in Madurai Law College. As we have already pointed out that there is a Government Order even as early as in the year 1978 and thereafter in the year 2006 showing that there was Tamil Medium class in 5 years B.L. Degree course in Madurai Law College. The Public Information Officer and the Director of Legal Studies may not aware about the said Government Orders and the said Government Orders are very much in operation till date. It is also relevant to note that the perusal of the information furnished by the Public Information Officer and the Director of Legal studies dated 25.03.2013 reveals that as per question/information No.2, it is stated that in 5 years B.L. Degree course from 1986-87 to 1994-95, separate classes were conducted for Tamil medium http://www.judis.nic.in 40 and for question/information No.4, it is stated that in the University examinations, the students can write either in Tamil or English Language. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the information furnished by The Public Information Officer and Director of Legal Studies cannot be stated to be a correct information and as such, it is futile to contend that there is no Tamil medium in 5 years B.L. Degree Course in Madurai Law College."
27. Per contra to the above decision, another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1621 of 2013 and W.P.No.19128 of 2014, passed an order on 6.8.2015 doubting the availability of Tamil Medium of Instruction in Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu despite the Government Order issued way back in 1978. The detailed discussion made by the Division Bench as found in paragraphs 14 to 24 is extracted hereunder:
"14. While what is reflected by the Government Orders referred to above is the fact that sanction had been accorded, way back in 1978. It took a long time for the http://www.judis.nic.in 41 commencement of Tamil Medium section to become a reality. But unfortunately, the history of the Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai as reflected in wikipedia shows as though Tamil was made as a Medium of instruction in Law as part of a Government policy from the academic year 1973-74. Therefore, despite this information furnished in the wikipedia going contrary to the actual Government Orders, the appellant relies upon this information to show that he studied in Tamil Medium. The information furnished in wikipedia and the Government Orders according sanction for starting a separate section in Tamil Medium, are not sufficient to hold that there was in fact a Tamil Medium section in Government Law College, Coimbatore and that the petitioner joined the same.
15. The appellant has not produced any Government Order by which a Tamil Medium section was started in Government Law College, Coimbatore. The Principal of the Government Law College, Coimbatore has sworn to a counter affidavit before the learned http://www.judis.nic.in 42 Judge, making it clear that during the academic years 2003-2004 to 2005-2006, there was no Tamil Medium in the Government Law College. Paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit filed by the Principal of the Government Law College, Coimbatore which was extracted even by the learned Judge, reads as follows:-
"2. With reference to the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit, I respectfully submit that the petitioner herein, Thiru.C.Senthilkumar was a student of the 3 year Law Course in the Government Law College, Coimbatore from the academic year 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. It is further submitted that there is no Tamil medium in the Government Law College, Coimbatore since its inception and therefore, Thiru.C.Senthilkumar, the petitioner herein has not studied Tamil medium in the Government Law College, Coimbatore."
16. In the absence of any Government Order indicating that a separate section in Tamil Medium was actually started in Government Law College, Coimbatore, it is not possible to discard the counter affidavit filed by the Principal of the Government Law College, http://www.judis.nic.in 43 Coimbatore. After all the Principal of the Government Law College, Coimbatore has nothing against the appellant. Therefore, the learned Judge was right in deciding the writ petition on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Principal of the Government Law College, Coimbatore.
ISSUE-2:
17. The second contention of the appellant is that classes were taken in all subjects only in Tamil and that he also wrote all examinations only in Tamil and that therefore, he should be taken to be a person who studied in Tamil Medium.
18. But unfortunately, the said contention goes contrary to the very Government Order by which reservation was created for persons who studied in Tamil Medium.
19. A direction to reserve 20% of the vacancies in all posts, for persons who studied in Tamil Medium, was issued udder an Ordinance known as Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under the http://www.judis.nic.in 44 State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Ordinance, 2010. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8(1) of the Ordinance, the Governor issued a set of Rules in G.O.Ms.No.145 P & AR Department, dated 30.9.2010. The expression "persons studied in Tamil Medium" was defined in Section 2(b) as follows:-
"(b) "persons studied in Tamil medium" means who have obtained the educational qualification or qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment in the rules or regulations or orders applicable to any appointment in the services under the State through Tamil medium of instruction."
20. Therefore, it is clear that only those who obtained the educational qualifications through Tamil Medium of instructions are entitled to the benefit of this reservation which is actually horizontal in nature. Merely because the teachers take classes in Tamil and merely because the examinations are written in Tamil, a person cannot claim to have studied in Tamil Medium. The standard of http://www.judis.nic.in 45 teaching has fallen to such an extent today that one may even teach English in Tamil. If so done, the person who studied English in such a manner cannot claim that he studied English Literature itself in Tamil Medium.
21. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied upon an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25835/2012 dated 18.4.2013 in T.Sergia Bindu vs. Secretary to Government Home (Courts-I) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. But we do not know how the said decision is of any assistance to the appellant. The said case arose out of a challenge to the selection of a particular candidate under the quota reserved for persons who studied in Tamil Medium. The Public Service Commission had accepted the claim made by the selected candidate who have studied a 5 year Law Degree in Tamil Medium in Madurai Law College. This claim was accepted by the Government as well as the Public Service Commission, but a third party questioned it. therefore, the third party's claim was rejected by the Division Bench.
http://www.judis.nic.in 46
22. But in the case on hand, the very Principal of the College where the appellant studied, has sworn to an affidavit clearly indicating that there was no Tamil Medium section in that college during the relevant point of time. The statement in the affidavit filed by the Principal of the Government College was also confirmed by a letter bearing RC.No.1999/A3/2013, dated 9.7.2013 sent by the Director of Legal Studies. Therefore, the supporting affidavits of the Lecturers and the co-students cannot be of any assistance to the appellant. We are actually surprised that the Lecturers of the College, instead of indicating whether there was a Tamil Medium section or not, had chosen to swear to supporting affidavits to the effect that they taught the subjects in Tamil.
23. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of an another Division Bench in P.Veeramuthu vs. Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in W.A.No.1715 of 2014 dated 10.2.2015. But we do not know how the said decision is of any assistance to the appellant. The said decision arose out of http://www.judis.nic.in 47 the lowering of cut-off marks by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in respect of persons who studied in Tamil Medium.
Therefore, after pointing out that allotment of seats to persons who studied in Tamil Medium was an horizontal reservation, which cuts across vertical reservation resulting in another locking reservation, the Bench held that two different cut-off marks cannot be prescribed, one for those who studied in Tamil Medium and another for those who studied in the other medium. This decision was not on the point as to whether a person who writes examinations in Tamil and who is taught some of the subjects also in Tamil could be considered as a person who studied in Tamil Medium or not.
24. As we have indicated earlier, persons who joined a course of study by specifically opting for Tamil as the Medium of instruction form a distinct and separate clause by themselves. It is only for them that the Government had provided two incentives, one in the form of monthly stipend and another in the form of horizontal reservations. Both these benefits cannot be claimed or availed by http://www.judis.nic.in 48 students who joined in English Medium but who are taught all subjects in Tamil and who wrote the examinations in Tamil on account of various deficiencies. Hence, we are of the considered view that there are no merits in the writ appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. As a consequence, the writ petition is also devoid of merits and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."
28. Recently, yet another Division Bench of this Court passed order in W.A.(MD) Nos.347 of 2016 & 741 of 2018 dated 31.07.2018, holding held that the factum of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium has to be established on a case to case basis. The Division Bench of this Court has observed in paragraph 26 and 36 as under:
"26. We are also guided by the statement of the DLS in communication dated 20.07.2018, that the Tamil medium is either ontinued or discontinued based on the interest displayed by the student community. We are of the view that this is not an acceptable modus http://www.judis.nic.in 49 operandi and would result in uncertainly. In the light of the discussion above, the Tamil medium of instruction introduced in the Madurai Law College by G.O.Ms.No.1492 dated 10.08.1978 continue till date until officially withdrawn. We however, hasten to clarifythat a claim by candidate for PSTM certification does not become automatic and is subject to our findings in the latter portion of this order."
"36. Though we have caegorically found and concluded that Tamil medium of instruction introduced in 1978 continue till date, we wish to make it clear that this does not lead to the conclusion that all or any claim to the PSTM certificate are liable to be accepted. A candidate would be eligible for a PSTM certificate only if the documents available clearly reflect the intention of the candidate to be admitted in the Tamil medium of instructions and to prusue the entire course in Tamil."
29. Besides the decisions of the learned Division Bench as set out above, one of us (VPNJ) rendered two decisions in respect of the same issue, one, dated 13.10.2017 in http://www.judis.nic.in 50 W.P.No.15381 of 2012 and another dated 8.10.2018 in W.P.(MD.)No.19244 of 2018. The former decision was rendered by giving a benefit of doubt to the candidate who studied in Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law College, Chennai since no clinching materials were placed before the Court as to the availability of Tamil Medium of Insruction and an order was passed in favour of the candidate concerned on the basis of assertion of the petitioner which could not be effectively rebutted by the official respondents. The relevant paragraphs 11 to 14 are extracted hereunder:
"11. The learned counsel would therefore submit that in the light of these unimpeachable documents and the letters so communicated, it cannot be gainsaid that there was no Medium of instruction in Tamil at the time when the petitioner had undergone the course, i.e. during the academic years 1993-1998.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the claim of the petitioner was not unequivocally http://www.judis.nic.in 51 established in view of the dispute whether there was Tamil Medium course in vogue during 1993-1998 for 5 year Law Degree course and whether the petitioner had undergone the course in Tamil Medium. In the face of looming uncertainty, whether the claim of the petitioner for employment under PSTM quota can be considered favourably. However, it is pertinent to note that in spite of sufficient time granted to the respondents, none of the respondents was able to produce any clinching material to disprove the claim of the petitioner except making assertions on the basis of averments in the writ petition. According to the Special Government Pleader, the answer sheets written by the petitioner during the course of study, were also not available and therefore, they were unable to conclusively establish the factum of the petitioner not having undergone Tamil Medium course.
13. It is relevant to point out here that such assertion made earlier by the authorities before the learned Division Bench and the learned single Judge of this Court as quoted above, had been disapproved and http://www.judis.nic.in 52 discountenanced in the face of the Government Orders providing for Tamil Medium course in legal education. Since no clinching materials have been produced before this Court to disprove and to rebut the assertion of the petitioner and self-declaration made on oath, this Court is inclined to accept the version of the petitioner with reference to the above said G.Os., and also the observations made by the learned single Judge and learned Division Bench in W.P.(MD.)No.14452 of 2014 and W.P.No.25835 of 2012. In any event, the respondents were not able to disprove atleast the claim of the petitioner that she had written her examination in 5 year Law Degree course in Tamil since the burden of proof is shifted on the respondents once a categoric assertion has been made on behalf of the petitioner. If such burden is not discharged to the satisfaction of the Court, the benefit of doubt will always go to the petitioner for grant of relief.
14. In the instant case, de hors whether there was Tamil Medium course available during the subject period or not, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner admittedly had http://www.judis.nic.in 53 studied only in Tamil Medium and also claimed to have written examination of 5 year Law degree in Tamil. Such a claim having been not disputed unequivocally, this Court is more inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner. "
30. Following the order, the latter decision was rendered in W.P.(MD).No.19244 of 2018 dated 8.10.2018, wherein, the learned Judge once again called upon to decide the issue as to whether Tamil Medium of Instruction was in vogue in Madurai Law College. The relevant portion of the order with discussion from paragraph 8 and the conclusion reached by the learned Judge in paragraph 14, are extracted as under:
"8. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit that there was no material as such to show that the petitioner has studied the law course in Tamil medium. He would also rely on the recent decision of the yet another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) Nos.347 of 2016 and 741 of 2018, dated 31.07.2018, wherein the http://www.judis.nic.in 54 Honourable Division Bench of this Court has observed in Paragraph No.17 as under:
"17. The settled position as per the aforesaid order is that the Tamil medium of instruction introduced in 1978 vide G.O.Ms.No.1492 dated 10.08.1978 continues to be available for the period 1978 till date. Substantial reliance is placed by the learned counsels for the first respondent in both the writ appeals on the decision of this Court in Sergia Bindu's case (supra)".
"9. The Honourable Division Bench of this Court would further make observation in Paragraph No.36, which is extracted hereunder:
"36. Though we have categorically found and concluded that Tamil medium of instruction introduced in 1978 continues till date, we wish to make it clear that this does not lead to the conclusion that all or any claim to the PSTM certificate are liable to be accepted. A candidate would be eligible for a PSTM certificate only if the documents available clearly reflect the intention of the candidate to be admitted in the Tamil medium of instructions and to pursue the entire course in Tamil.
"10. Therefore, he would submit that status of PSTM has to be granted only on the basis of the individual's claim, even assuming that there was Tamil medium of instruction in http://www.judis.nic.in 55 the College, wherein the petitioner was studying.
"11. This Court has perused the materials and the pleadings placed on record and also examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side.
"12. In fact, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has indicated his preference to study the law course in Tamil medium as evidenced from the application itself. As rightly held by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Sergia Bindu's case (cited supra), the Tamil medium of instruction was introduced as early as during the academic year 1978 ? 1979, in the Government Law College, Madurai / third respondent herein. In such view of the matter, it is not for the third respondent to refuse to issue PSTM certificate to the petitioner on the ground that for the academic year 2012 -2013, there was no Tamil medium of instruction in the third respondent-College. On behalf of the respondents, no document has been produced to demonstrate that during the relevant point of time, there was no Tamil medium of instruction http://www.judis.nic.in 56 in the third respondent-College. When the State Authorities failed to produce any documents in support of their contention, this Court would naturally be inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner, more particularly, when the claim is well supported by the petitioner's application forms, wherein against the relevant column, he has indicated his preference "Yes"
to study the law course in Tamil medium.
When that being the case, this Court has to presume that there was Tamil medium of instruction in the third respondent-College, during the relevant point of time. Any contravention would be unsupported by any materials and such contravention would only defeat the valuable right of the petitioner to get PSTM certificate, which would give him an edge in public employment, in view of the reservation earmarked for such candidate in pursuance of Tamil Medium Act, 2010.
"13. The petitioner has also averred in his affidavit that he had completed his schooling only in Tamil language and also written the University Examinations only in Tamil language. Even assuming for a moment that http://www.judis.nic.in 57 Tamil medium of instruction was not in vogue during the academic year 2012-2013 and the very fact that the petitioner himself has written all his University examinations in Tamil language and also completed his entire Schooling in Tamil language would entitle him to be given a certificate as having studied in Tamil medium. The reason as set forth in the impugned order that there was no medium of Tamil for the academic year 2012-2013 has not been supported any material whatsoever and in the absence of any material, the petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt. From the materials as disclosed, this Court is more inclined in favour of the petitioner and not in favour of the respondents. In fact, as per the decision of the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Sergia Bindu's case (cited supra) as well as this Court's order dated 13.10.2017 in W.P.Nos.15381 & 21012 of 2013, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition.
"14. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.875/A4/2018, dated 14.08.2018, http://www.judis.nic.in 58 passed by the third respondent, is hereby set aside. The third respondent is directed to issue certificate to the petitioner certifying him as the Person Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM). The third respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
31. One other learned single Judge of this Court has dealt with the same issue in W.P.(MD) No.21160 of 2017, dated 7.6.2018 and concluded as under in paragraph 13.
"13.When the Government Law College, Madurai, had introduced Tamil medium of instruction in the year 1978-1979 and the same was not cancelled in the subsequent years through a separate Government Order, it can only be assumed that the Tamil medium of instruction was always available in the Government Law College, Madurai. The petitioner having written her examinations in Tamil ought to have prepared and studied her course through the materials in Tamil language http://www.judis.nic.in 59 alone. The very object of recognizing a candidate as a person who studied in Tamil medium is to encourage such persons, who gave importance to the language by studying the course in Tamil and ultimately writing the examinations also in Tamil language. Even otherwise, without admitting that there was no Tamil medium of instruction during the year 2012-2015, in view of the fact that classes were not been conducted in Tamil, it cannot be said that the petitioner herein should be deprived of PSTM Certificate, which is because the classes were not conducted in Tamil."
32. Recently, a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.21215 of 2018, dated 30.11.2018 has held that the petitioner therein was eligible to get certificate having studied in Tamil Medium in Madurai Law College. The conclusion reached by the learned Judge as found in paragraphs 13 and 14, is extracted as under:
"13. The petitioner is eligible for getting a certificate of students studied in 'Tamil http://www.judis.nic.in 60 medium'. Since the petitioner has studied all the subjects in Tamil from day one of School Education and she has studied 'Tamil medium' in the Law College and written her examination in Tamil, she can only deemed to be a person pursued her studies in 'Tamil medium', she is entitled for issuing a certificate to the effect.
"14. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has to be issued with necessary certificate by the College authorities. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to issue the certificate of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."
33. From the above decisions, it could be seen that there was absence of sufficient materials in regard to the factum of conducting Law Course in Tamil Medium in Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. Although admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.1492 was issued in 1978 itself, nevertheless the http://www.judis.nic.in 61 persons who were in the helm of affairs, were unsure as to whether factually there were Tamil Medium classes conducted in furtherance of the said G.O. In fact, there were other G.Os. issued in 2006 which speak about continuance of Tamil Medium of Instruction and reintroduction after gap of a period of time. In all, one thing is certain about the issue of its uncertainity. The first decision in respect of the subject issue was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25835 of 2012 which was reported in "(2013) 4 MLJ 433 (cited supra), wherein, the Division Bench has given the order despite the contrary stand taken by the official respondents therein, whereas, another Division Bench which rendered decision on 6.8.2015 in W.A.No.1621 of 2013 & 19128 of 2014 has held that there was no Tamil Medium of Instruction in Law Colleges and was doubtful about the availability of such Medium of Instruction despite G.Os.
34. Likewise, another Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 31.07.2018 in W.A.(MD) No.347 of 2016 & 741 of http://www.judis.nic.in 62 2018, has held that the verification of PSTM claim has to be done on a case to case basis and such claim for PSTM cannot be conferred and acceded to automatically because of students studying in a particular Law College where G.O. was issued for conducting the course in Tamil Medium of Instruction. The orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court have also been more substantial on the basis of certain presumption in favour of the candidates, in the absence of concrete materials discountenancing the assertion made by the candidates concerned. The officials who are in administration of State Law Colleges are unable to bring forth any clinching material to apprise the Court as to what is actual reality in respect of State Law Colleges including Madurai Law College in regard to conduct of Tamil Medium Courses. On the whole, it appears that the question of whether Tamil Medium of Instruction is available in Law Colleges in the State run by the State Universities remain unaswered as on date, nonethless, the Courts were compelled to render decisions on the basis of expediency with the http://www.judis.nic.in 63 available materials.
35. In the above circumstances, this Bench is of the view that the area of uncertainity in regard to the subject matter of discussion is to be removed once and for all for a clear categoric pronouncement on the issue. It has become more imperative today for this Court to take call on the issue since 20% reservation was earmarked for PSTM candidates by the State of Tamil Nadu, therefore, every selection which involves particpation of law graduates from the State of Tamil Nadu particularly, from the State Universities, the claim for PSTM status has to be recognized with fool-proof factual basis underlying such claim. In the absence of such foolproof materials, whenever a selection is made, doors of this Court are being knocked by the candidates concerned who are claiming PSTM status seeking direction to the institutions in which they had studied for issuance of PSTM certificate. The Courts while entertaining such Writ Petitions are literally called upon to decide disputed questions of fact as to whether http://www.judis.nic.in 64 the Medium of Instruction in Tamil was available in a particular Law College affliated to the State University. The Courts cannot at every time, embark upon a roving enquiry to find out whether particular State Law College has Tamil Medium of Instruction or not in order to avoid such uncertain contingency, this Bench is of the view that there required an authoratative pronouncement by a larger Bench of this Court only to put an end to the legal and factual controversy that quite often arises for consideration by this Court.
36. In view of the above, this Court directs the Registry to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for it to be referred to a larger Bench for authoratative pronouncement http://www.judis.nic.in 65 on the following issues, viz., "i) Whether studied the Course in Tamil and having written University Examinations in Tamil language will qualify the candidate for claiming reservation against Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM)?
ii) In the absence of Tamil Medium of Instruction in the Colleges, whether the candidates studied the Courses in Tamil, or having written Examinations in Tamil can be placed on par with PSTM candidates for the purpose of claiming reservation earmarked for PSTM?
Incidentally, the following issue is also required to be referred to in view of legal and factual controversy in regard to the existence of Tamil Medium of Instruction in the Law Coleges run by the State Universities, viz.,
iii) Whether the Tamil Medium of http://www.judis.nic.in 66 Instruction is in vogue and available in Law Colleges run by the State Universities and if available, from what period the courses have been commenced in Tamil Medium and whether the same has been continuing uninterruptedly up to which period? If Tamil Medium of Instruction is available, factually which are the Law Colleges run by the State Universities, conducting the Law Course in Tamil as Medium of Instruction?"
(V.B.D.,J.) (V.P.N.,J.) Suk 27-02-2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Note: Issue Order copy by 4.3.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 67 To
1. The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Frazer Bridge road, Park Town, VOC Nagar, Chennai-600 003.
3. The Director of Legal Studies, Purasawalkam, Chennai-10.
4. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai-104.
http://www.judis.nic.in 68 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.& V.PARTHIBAN, J.
Suk PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.NOS.27127, 27156 & 27225 OF 2018 27-02-2019 http://www.judis.nic.in