Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The second respondent herein had also quoted the earlier application made by the petitioner in the year 2014-15, wherein she had not claimed priority under PSTM category and thereby have drawn an adverse inference. I am unable to endorse such a view. Just because the petitioner had not claimed priority in the year 2014-15 selection process, the second respondent can neither draw an adverse inference that she had not taken Tamil as medium of instruction in her PG course, nor can they rely upon such an occurrence as an impediment for claiming priority under PSTM category in the subsequent selection process. Ultimately, what is required to be seen is as to, whether the petitioner had, prior to the date of notification, undergone the minimum educational qualification prescribed in Tamil, as the medium of instruction only. http://www.judis.nic.in When this Court has categorically held that the petitioner's medium of instruction as Tamil would relate back to the period between June 2005 to May 2007 when she has undergone her M.Com degree and had passed the same at that relevant point of time, which is much prior to the date of the PSTM certificate, the non-availment of the priority under PSTM category in the earlier selection process, becomes immaterial. Thus, the reasons assigned by the second respondent in this regard, cannot be sustained.