Madras High Court
A.P.Sahana vs The Secretary on 24 September, 2025
WP No. 20892 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WP No. 20892 of 2019
A.P.Sahana
W/O. S.J.Rajkumar No 1, Vallal Pari
Street, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu
District.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary
To Government, Forest Department,
Secretariat chennai-9
2.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission, TNPSC road Chennai.
3.The Controller of Examinations
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road chennai.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constituion of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
of the 3rd Respondent dated 25.6.2019 issued for conducting oral test to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm )
WP No. 20892 of 2019
Post of Forest Apprentice in the Tamil nadu Forest Subordinate service and
quash the same in so far as it relates to rejecting the candidature of Petitioner
vide registration No 010008114 is concerned and consequently direct the
Respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to attend the oral test to be held on
16.7.2019 to 18.7.2019 and consider her for selection to the post of Forest
Apprentice in the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service
For Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Madu Balaji
For Respondent(s): Mr. V. Veluchamty, AGP for R-1
Mr. K.Karthik Jeganath,
Standing counsel for R2 & R3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader st nd rd appearing for the 1 respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the 2 and 3 respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the 2nd respondent had issued a Notification No. 12/2018 dated 04.07.2018 calling for applications for filling up 148 regular vacancy and 10 SC short fall vacancy post of Forest Apprentice; that the mode of selection is based on written test, physical test and interview; that the written examination was conducted on 09.10.2018 to 15.10.2018 for two optional subjects and one subject in general studies. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm ) WP No. 20892 of 2019
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that she being an Engineering Graduate with specialisation in computers, had applied to the aforesaid post and took part in the written examination held between 09.10.2018 and 15.10.2018; and that the results were published on 10.01.2019. It is the further case of the petitioner that despite the petitioner doing well in the written examination, she was not called to attend the oral interview and thus, the respondent did not follow a uniform procedure for selecting the candidates for being appointed to the above vacancies.
4. The petitioner further contended that the process of selection, by appointing candidates only having B.Sc. degree with Forestry Specialisation is discriminatory.
5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the nd rd 2 and 3 respondents submit that notification was issued to the fill up vacancies in the Forest Department as Forest Apprentice under Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Rules, and it is for the said reason, the authorities while prescribing the educational qualification had mentioned that a candidate should https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm ) WP No. 20892 of 2019 possess Bachelor's degree in Forestry or its equivalent degree of any institution or University recognised by UGC; and that only in the event of a candidates possessing Bachelor's Degree in Forestry not being available, candidates having other Bachelor's Degree would be considered in the sequence of preference as mentioned in the notification.
6. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that since, the recruitment is to fill up vacancies for the post of Forest Apprentice in Forest Department, the appointing authority chose to give first preference to candidates having specialised knowledge in particular branch/subject i.e., forest science and since, the petitioner is an Engineering Graduate in computers, though was found eligible, would stand below in the order of preference for the said recruitment.
7. The learned Standing counsel would further contend that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid preferential treatment given to the Bachelor's Degree holding Forestry, the petitioner ought to have laid a challenge to the notification when it was issued and not after taking part in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm ) WP No. 20892 of 2019 examination by applying to the said vacancy.
8. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid education qualification was prescribed in the notification in terms of Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules and in as much as there is no challenge to the Rules, it is not open to the petitioner to assail the Notification or selection made thereunder.
9. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that in so far as the vacancies notified under the impugned notification dated 04.07.2018, the same have been filled up by the candidates having Bachelor's degree in Forestry and since, there were no vacancies which remained unfilled, the petitioner who is standing below in the order of preference by having Bachelor's degree in Engineering was not considered for being appointed against the aforesaid vacancies.
10. I have taken note of the respective contentions.
11. Firstly, it is to be noted that there is no challenge to the notification https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm ) WP No. 20892 of 2019 or Rules, under which, the said Notification is issued by the respondents. Further, the petitioner having applied under the aforesaid notification and also taking part in the written examination held and on being unsuccessful in the aforesaid examination, cannot seek to challenge either the notification or the mode of selection/educational qualification prescribed in the notification. This issue of a candidate after taking part in a selection process pursuant to the notification issued and laying challenge to the selection process has been subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“13. The law on the subject has been crystallised in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari V. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge tot he process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannto subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of Inda v. S.Vinodh Kumar, this Court held at para 18 that:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm ) WP No. 20892 of 2019 “18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munidra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil and Rashmi Mishra V. M.P.Public Service Commission.
12.Since, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner having regard to the educational qualification prescribed in the notification and also the preferential qualification mentioned therein not only having applied but also taking part in the written examination, cannot turn around later challenge either the notification or the educational qualification prescribed in the said notification.
13. Thus, the challenge of the petitioner on this ground has to fail.
14. In so far as the claim of the petitioner of she having done well the written examination and ought to have been considered on the basis of merit, for being appointed against the aforesaid vacancies notified, it is to be noted that since, the preference as per the notification is to be given to Bachelor's Degree holder in Forestry and the list of selected candidates pursuant to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm ) WP No. 20892 of 2019 aforesaid interview, as placed before this Court shows that all the selected candidates possess only Bachelor's Degree in Forestry, this Court is of the view that the petitioner who stands in second preferential list cannot seek to claim for being appointed as Forest Apprentice, merely because, she has secured more marks than the candidates having Bachelor's Degree in Forestry, only because the respondent had allowed other degree holders specified in the notification to apply for the aforesaid post subject to the vacancy not being filled up by the candidates having Bachelor's Degree of Forestry.
15. Thus, considered from any angle, the present writ petition as filed is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
msr 24-09-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm )
WP No. 20892 of 2019
To
1.The Secretary
To Government, Forest Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission, TNPSC road Chennai.
3.The Controller of Examinations
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm )
WP No. 20892 of 2019
T.VINOD KUMAR J.
msr
WP No. 20892 of 2019
24-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:27:52 pm )