Madras High Court
S.Murugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 February, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.14708 of 2012 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 S.Murugan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its, The Principal Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009. 2.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner name under PSTM (Persons studied in Tamil Medium) category and to give benefit of G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 30.09.2010 for appointment to the posts mentioned in Sl. Nos. 1 to 16 of the Table - I in the Notification issued by the 2nd Respondent in Advertisement No.258 on 30.12.2010. !For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanakumar For 1st Respondent : Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader For 2nd Respondent : Mr.K.K.Senthil :ORDER
The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's name under PSTM (Persons studied in Tamil Medium) category and to give benefit of G.O.Ms.No.145, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 30.09.2010 for appointment to the post mentioned in Sl. Nos. 1 to 16 of the Table - I in the Notification issued by the 2nd Respondent in Advertisement No.258 on 30.12.2010.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the petitioner had completed B.A. (History) in the year 1988 in Tamil Medium and now working as Revenue Inspector in Revenue Department, Sivagangai District. Pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent on 30.12.2000, the writ petitioner has submitted an application for participating in the recruitment process. Accordingly, the writ petitioner had participated in the written examination test.
3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he had successfully passed in the written examination and secured good marks, therefore, he must be given the benefit of PSTM quota. The petitioner has studied in Tamil Medium and therefore, he is eligible to avail the quota allotted to PSTM candidates. However, the case of the writ petitioner was rejected and he was not permitted for oral test on the ground that he had not produced the required certificate to establish that he can be considered under PSTM quota.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the time of oral test the petitioner had offered to produce the certificate in relation to PSTM and the same was not accepted.
5.The learned counsel for the second respondent relying on the counter affidavit made a submission that the writ petitioner Thiru.S.Murugan has failed to enclose either evidence for having studied for the prescribed qualification in Tamil Medium or the undertaking regarding the medium of instruction as Tamil in the application for the posts included in CSSE-1 2009-2011. Thus he was not considered as a candidate for availing reservation under PSTM. Further it is stated that the petitioner had produced PSTM Certificate issued by Madurai Kamaraj University at the time of oral test in this connection it is evident and pertinenet to state that if the petitioner has not enclosed the Tamil Medium Certificate/Under taking regarding the medium of instruction as Tamil while sending his application for direct recruitment to the posts included in CSSE-I 2009-2011.
6.Further it is contended that such certificates produced at the time of oral test would not be considered, since sufficient number of candidates had already been selected in each reserved category based on the marks obtained by them in the written examination and based on their rightful claims. However, based on the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written examination, he was called for the first phase of counselling for Non Oral Test posts and has opted the post of Assistant in Registration Department, under MBC/DC general category. Thus, the writ petitioner had been entered in the said department and accordingly serving at present.
7.The point to be considered is that whether the writ petitioner had submitted the relevant certificates and marked the relevant columns in the application form or not. In this regard the petitioner himself enclosed the copy of the notification at page No.11 of the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition. Clause 3 provides general information to the candidates. Sub Clause III reads under:-
(iii) Candidates who claim reservation with reference to orders issued in the above G.O. Should enclose evidence in support of their claim.
Application submitted without evidence will not be considered for the above said reservation.
8.The above said clause very clearly states that the application submitted without evidence will not be considered for the above said reservation. Clause 10 states that enclosures to be sent along with the applications and the same reads as under:-
?In addition to the above said enclosures evidence for PSTM should be enclosed if the candidates claim reservation for PSTM.?
9.The said clause also unambiguously states that the evidence for PSTM should be enclosed, if the candidates claim for PSTM. Page 25 of the typed set of papers provides the copy of the OMR application form, wherein the writ petitioner has not marked the column that he prays in Tamil Medium and he left it blank.
10.This being factum of the case the writ petitioner has not marked the Tamil Medium Column in his original online application and even as per the general instruction provided in the notification. He has not enclosed the evidence to avail the PSTM reservation and this apart he has already appointed, based on his marks, in the registration department and woking.
11.This being the factum of the case, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner has not estblished any legal ground for the purpose of considering the relief as such sought in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Principal Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, St.George Fort, Chennai-600 009.
.