Madras High Court
The Teachers Recruitment Board vs P.Annakodi on 13 October, 2025
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.704 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A.No.704 of 2025
AND
C.M.P.No.6021 of 2025
The Teachers Recruitment Board
Rep. by its Member Secretary
DPI Campus, Chennai 600 006 .. Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Annakodi
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
School Education Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
3.The Director of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai 600 006 .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent challenging the order
dated 28.08.2024 in W.P.No.24452 of 2024.
1\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm )
W.A.No.704 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Siddharth
Standing Counsel
For R1 : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
Senior Counsel
for Ms.S.Suneetha
For RR2 and 3 : Mr.J.C.Durairaj
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This intra-court appeal has been directed against the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.24452 of 2024.
2.The appellant viz., the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB), who stood as 2nd respondent before the writ Court, called for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant.
3.For the post of B.T. Assistant (History), since the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was holding the eligible qualification, she applied for the said post under the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM) category.
2\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm ) W.A.No.704 of 2025 st
4.Though the 1 respondent/writ petitioner secured 61.50 marks and was also called for certificate verification, subsequently, the TRB released a list of non- selected candidates or ineligible candidates on 25.07.2024, in which, the name of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner since was included, challenging the same, the said writ petition was filed.
5. The reason for inclusion of the name of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in the said list dated 25.07.2024 is that, even though she had applied under the PSTM category and had produced certificates with respect to the qualification for holding the said post, to prove that she pursued +1 and +2 in Tamil medium, she had not produced the relevant certificate.
6.This aspect was considered by the learned writ Court and by quoting two earlier decisions, the writ Court had come to a conclusion that insofar as the medium of instruction of +1 of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is concerned, she had produced the certificate issued by the Head Master of the school concerned as if she studied in Tamil medium, since +1 examination would be conducted only at the school level. Insofar as +2 is concerned, since the 1st respondent/writ petitioner appeared as a private candidate, the certificate issued by the Directorate of 3\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm ) W.A.No.704 of 2025 Government Examinations, to establish that she had written her +2 examination only in Tamil with registration No.904722 and therefore, the certificate since already been made available with the TRB that are produced by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, would be enough to come to the conclusion that she had completed her +2 in Tamil medium and hence, she would become eligible under the PSTM category. Therefore, a direction has been given by the writ Court to consider the candidature of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner under the PSTM category and therefore, she comes under the zone of consideration on merit by virtue of the marks secured and her candidature be forwarded to the appointing authority. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the writ Court dated 28.08.2024, the present appeal has been directed.
7.Heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/TRB, who would submit that insofar as the medium of instruction of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner in +1 and +2 is concerned, though it was claimed by her that she studied +1 in Tamil medium based on the certificate issued by the Head Master of the school concerned, at the time of certificate verification, there was no proof on the part of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner that she had uploaded the same and on verification by the TRB, insofar as +2 is concerned, she had 4\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm ) W.A.No.704 of 2025 completed it by way of private study, based on which, the certificate issued in this regard by the Directorate of Government Examinations was produced. Based on the said certificate, as it only discloses that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had written +2 examination in Tamil, it does not disclose that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had studied +2 in Tamil medium, it cannot be accepted as a valid document to the satisfaction of the TRB for the purpose of giving priority under the PSTM category, which is a horizontal reservation being made by the Tamil Nadu Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 (for short “the Act”). Therefore, on these two grounds the candidature of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was rejected and included in the list of ineligible candidates, which was impugned before the writ Court. Without considering all these aspects in a proper perspective since the writ Court has allowed the writ petition, it requires interference at the hands of the Division Bench.
8.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.
9.We have gone through the impugned order passed by the writ Court, wherein, the certificate of similar nature issued by the authority considered in 5\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm ) W.A.No.704 of 2025 W.P.No.10629 of 2024 dated 30.04.2020 was discussed. At paragraph 12 of that order, the certificate issued by the authority has been extracted. This certificate issued by the authority shows that the writ petitioner therein had written +2 examination in Tamil medium. Therefore, it goes without saying that she has completed +2 examination only in Tamil medium.
10.There is no specific rule available either under the Act or the rules made thereunder or any Government Orders to state that even though the examination is written by the candidate in Tamil medium, that would not ipso facto fulfil the qualification to hold the post unless the candidate produces the certificate from the authority concerned or from the educational institution to establish that he/she had studied in Tamil medium throughout her course. The said stand taken by the TRB cannot be acceded to, in our considered view.
11.Further, insofar as the +1 course is concerned, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had studied in the school and normally, +1 examination would be conducted only in school and it is not a public examination. The certification issued by the Head Master of the school concerned stating that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had studied +1 in Tamil medium, in our considered view is enough to be accepted by the TRB.
6\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm ) W.A.No.704 of 2025
12.Therefore, since the 1st respondent/writ petitioner had completed both her +1 and +2 in Tamil medium and to that effect, when two certificates, one issued by the Head Master of the school concerned and the other by the Directorate of Government Examinations are there, those certificates should have been accepted for considering the candidature of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, which aspect has been elaborated by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the earlier decision to that effect also has been taken into account, which has been, in fact, extracted by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, absolutely there is no reason to reject the candidature of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner by including her name in the ineligible list dated 25.07.2024. Therefore, there was every justification on the part of the writ Court to allow such writ petition by the present impugned order, especially, by giving a direction in paragraph 12 of the impugned order to consider the candidature of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner for selection under the PSTM category, provided the 1st respondent/writ petitioner comes within the zone of consideration and the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge through the order which is impugned herein, does not warrant interference at our hands for the reasons which we discussed supra.
7\10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm ) W.A.No.704 of 2025 In such view of the matter, this writ appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps. are closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (H.C., J.)
13.10.2025
gya
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
8\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm )
W.A.No.704 of 2025
To
1.The Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009
2.The Director of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai 600 006
9\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm )
W.A.No.704 of 2025
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
gya
W.A.No.704 of 2025
13.10.2025
10\10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/01/2026 05:53:32 pm )