M.Kalaivani vs The Secretary
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:2333
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 27.01.2026 & 28.01.2026
DELIVERED ON : 29.06.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD)Nos.1266, 1411, 2011, 2805, 6243, 23151 of 2024;
13587, 26490, 26701, 27149, 27437, 33810 of 2025
&
WMP(MD)Nos.1293, 1295, 1443, 2012, 2013,
2806, 5856, 5858, 19618, 19619 of 2024;
9794, 9795, 9797, 20556, 20703, 20704,
21081, 21082, 21087, 21364, 26703, 27065,
27675 to 27678 of 2025; 1612 of 2026
WP(MD)No.1266 of 2024:-
M.Kalaivani : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai – 625 021.
1/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
1/165G, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai – 625 002. : Respondents
PRAYER:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned show cause notice vide reference no.
6543/OTD-B1/2017-3 dated 05.01.2024 issued by the first respondent,
quash the same and consequently, directing the first respondent to wait till
the proceedings are completed in the investigation taken by the third
respondent and a final report is filed.
WP(MD)No.1411 of 2024:-
S.Swapna (Transgender) : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai.
2/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Madurai. : Respondents
[R.3 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 23.01.2024]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned order in Memorandum No.6543/OTD-B1/2017-4 dated
05.01.2024 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.
WP(MD)No.2011 of 2024:-
K.C.Sathish Kumar : Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
TNPSC Road,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.Madurai Kamaraj University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai.
3/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Madurai. : Respondents
[R.3 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 01.02.2024]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order in Memorandum No.6543/OTD-
B1/2017-2 dated 05.01.2024 issued by the first respondent, quash the same
and consequently, directing the first respondent to drop all further
proceedings against the petitioner.
WP(MD)No.2805 of 2024:-
N.A.Chanheetha : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, Park Town,
Chennai.
2.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai.
4/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
No.1/165G, Alagarkovil Road,
Madurai - 2. : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned show cause notice in Memorandum No.6543/OTD-
B1/2017-1 dated 05.01.2024 issued by the first respondent and quash the
same.
WP(MD)No.6243 of 2024:-
M.Kalaivani : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai – 625 021.
5/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
1/165G, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai – 625 002. : Respondents
PRAYER:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned show cause notice in reference No.
6937/OTD-B1/2019 dated 23.01.2024 issued by the first respondent, quash
the same and consequently, directing the first respondent to wait till the
proceedings are completed in the investigation taken up by the third
respondent and a final report is filed.
WP(MD)No.23151 of 2024:-
N.A.Chanheetha : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai – 625 021.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Madurai District. : Respondents
[R.2 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 27.09.2024]
6/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
PRAYER:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned order in Ref:MKU/DDE/V&AC/P&D 2023 dated 09.11.2023
issued by the first respondent as against the petitioner and quash the same.
WP(MD)No.13587 of 2025:-
S.Swapna (Transgender) : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
3.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai – 625 021.
4.The Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
Chennai – 5. : Respondents
7/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O(D)No.48,
Commercial Taxes and Registration (E1) Department dated 03.03.2025 and
quash the same.
WP(MD)No.26490 of 2025:-
N.A.Chanheetha : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Madurai Kamaraj University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai – 625 021.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
1/165G, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai – 625 002. : Respondents
[R.3 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 27.01.2026]
8/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
PRAYER:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned proceedings in Memorandum No.6543/QTD-A3/2017-1
dated 04.09.2025 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.
WP(MD)No.26701 of 2025:-
K.C.Sathish Kumar : Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.Madurai Kamaraj University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai – 21.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
1/165G, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai – 625 002. : Respondents
[R.3 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 27.01.2026]
9/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned order in Memorandum No.6543/OTD-
A3/2017-2 dated 04.09.2025 issued by the first respondent, quash the same
and consequently, directing the first respondent to keep all further
proceedings in abeyance till the outcome of the criminal case registered in
Crime No.12 of 2024 against the petitioner.
WP(MD)No.27149 of 2025:-
Kalaivani : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai – 625 021.
10/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
1/165G, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai – 625 002. : Respondents
[R.3 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 27.01.2026]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned order in Memorandum No.6937/OTD-A3/2019 dated
08.09.2025 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.
WP(MD)No.27437 of 2025:-
S.Swapna (Transgender) : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Deputy Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.Madurai Kamaraj University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai – 625 021.
11/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
1/165G, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai – 625 002. : Respondents
[R.3 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 27.01.2026]
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned order in Memorandum No.6543/OTD-A3/2017-4 dated
04.09.2025 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.
WP(MD)No.33810 of 2025:-
S.Swapna (Transgender) : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
O/o.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
Ezhilagam,
Chepauk, Chennai.
12/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
3.The Joint Commissioner (ST),
Madurai Division,
Madurai.
4.The Deputy Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
5.Madurai Kamaraj University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai – 625 021. : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned order in G.O(D)No.360, Commercial Taxes and Registration
(E1) Department dated 14.11.2025 issued by the first respondent and quash
the same.
Appearances :-
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandha Padmanabhan,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.APN Law Associates
in WP(MD)Nos.1266, 6243 of 2024,
27149 of 2025
13/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman
in WP(MD)Nos.2011 of 2024,
26701 of 2025
Mr.M.P.Senthil
in WP(MD)Nos.2805, 23151 of 2024,
26490 of 2025
Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
in WP(MD)Nos.1411 of 2024,
13587, 27437, 33810 of 2025
For Respondents: Mr.J.Anand Kumar,
Standing Counsel for TNPSC
(In all WPs)
Mr.Isaac Mohanlal,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for Madurai Kamaraj University
(In all WPs)
Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for Vigilance & Anti Corruption Wing
(In all WPs)
Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Government Pleader
for R.1, R.4 in WP(MD)No.13587/2025
for R.1 to R.3 in WP(MD)No.33810/2025
*
14/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
COMMON ORDER
Reservation is a welfare measure adopted by the State to advance
substantive equality by ensuring preferential opportunities in education
and public employment for disadvantaged and underrepresented sections
of society. Pursuant to the same, the Government of Tamil Nadu enacted
the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential Basis in the Services under
the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Act, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as the "PSTM Act"), to promote and protect the interests of
candidates who pursued their education through Tamil medium. The Act
provides for 20% preferential reservation in all direct recruitments to State
services for persons who have studied in Tamil medium. Correspondingly,
the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
"TNPSC") earmarked a separate 20% quota for Persons Studied in Tamil
Medium (“PSTM”).
2.However, the reservation under the PSTM Act has allegedly been
misused, thereby depriving the genuine beneficiaries of its protection.
15/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
Candidates who had not undergone their schooling in Tamil medium
allegedly secured the benefit of the reservation by obtaining only the
prescribed degree qualification through Tamil medium. Serious allegations
have also surfaced that certain candidates procured fake degree certificates
from various Universities in order to fraudulently avail the benefit of the
PSTM reservation.
3.Alleging such widespread malpractices, one G.Sakthi Rao filed
WP(MD)No.8025 of 2020 as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the
recruitment to various posts under the Combined Civil Services-I
Examination (Group-I Services) pursuant to Notification No.1 of 2020 dated
20.01.2020. The petitioner contended that candidates who had not
completed their entire schooling and college education through Tamil
medium had been selected under the PSTM quota. The petitioner
consequently sought directions to permit only those candidates who had
th th
completed their entire education, namely, 10 Standard, 12 Standard and
Degree, through Tamil medium to claim the benefit of the PSTM
reservation, to frame appropriate rules governing the PSTM quota, and to
16/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
restrain the Universities from issuing PSTM certificates for distance
education courses.
4.While dealing with the said Public Interest Litigation, a Division
Bench of this Court, by order dated 23.02.2021, took note of the pending
vigilance enquiry relating to serious irregularities in the Madurai Kamaraj
University (hereinafter referred to as "MKU"), including malpractices in the
conduct of examinations, collection of fees, missing answer sheets and
issuance of fake certificates. Thereafter, by order dated 22.03.2021, the
Division Bench directed the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to
constitute a Special Team headed by an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the irregularities in the
conduct of examinations and issuance of false certificates, including false
PSTM certificates, in MKU and to complete the investigation within a time-
bound schedule. The said orders were challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.3364 to 3367 of 2022, which came to be
dismissed on 31.07.2023. Meanwhile, the Principal Secretary to
Government, Higher Education Department, also forwarded allegations
17/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
concerning the Directorate of Distance Education of MKU to the Vigilance
Department, pursuant to which an enquiry was registered in D.E.
24/2020/EDN/M.
5.Pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai,
commenced investigation. The investigation agency collected the details of
the candidates who had secured appointment to the Group-I services under
the PSTM quota on the strength of PSTM certificates issued by MKU.
Communications were therefore addressed to the University calling for
relevant records relating to their degree and PSTM certificates. Although
the investigation commenced in the year 2021, the University delayed
furnishing the required documents and took a stand that certain records
were unavailable. Consequently, the petitioner in WP(MD)No.8025 of 2020
initiated contempt proceedings in Cont.P(MD)No.918 of 2021 alleging non-
compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench. Subsequently,
the Vigilance Department was impleaded in the contempt proceedings on
26.07.2022 and MKU was impleaded on 25.08.2022. Thereafter, upon
18/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
directions issued by the Division Bench requiring the University to extend
full cooperation to the investigating agency, the necessary records were
furnished. On verification of those records, the Vigilance Department
found that the petitioners herein had allegedly obtained bogus degree
certificates without following the prescribed admission procedure or the
payment of the requisite registration fees. A preliminary enquiry was
accordingly conducted, and prior approval under Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained on 05.09.2024. Thereafter, a
regular case in Crime No.12 of 2024 was registered on 03.10.2024 against
the petitioners and certain officials of MKU for offences under Sections 120-
B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 167 and 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6.All the petitioners were selected pursuant to Notification No.1 of
2019 dated 01.01.2019 issued for the Combined Civil Services-I Examination
(Group-I Services) 2016-2019 and were appointed to various Group-I posts
through the TNPSC. In addition, Kalaivani was also selected in the Group-I
Recruitment Examination, 2020. Chanheetha, the petitioner in
19/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
WP(MD)Nos.23151 of 2024, 2805 of 2024 and 26490 of 2025, was appointed
as Deputy Collector. K.C.Satish Kumar, the petitioner in WP(MD)Nos.2011
of 2024 and 26701 of 2025, was appointed as Assistant Commissioner
(Commercial Taxes). Swapna, the petitioner in WP(MD)Nos.1411 of 2024,
13587 of 2025 and 27437 of 2025, was appointed as Assistant Commissioner
(Commercial Taxes). Kalaivani, the petitioner in WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024,
6243 of 2024 and 27149 of 2025, was appointed as Deputy Superintendent
of Police (Category-I) pursuant to the Group-I Examination, 2016-2019 and
was subsequently appointed as Deputy Collector in the Group-I
Recruitment Examination, 2020.
7.During the course of investigation, the DSP, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, by communication dated 24.02.2023, requested the TNPSC to
verify the genuineness of the certificates produced by the petitioners. The
TNPSC, after collecting the relevant particulars and records from the
concerned departments, including MKU, forwarded the same to the
Vigilance Department. The Vigilance Department also informed the TNPSC
regarding the registration of the criminal case against the petitioners.
20/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
8.Thereafter, the TNPSC issued show cause notices calling upon the
petitioners to explain the genuineness of the PSTM certificates produced by
them during the selection process. The said show cause notices have been
challenged in WP(MD)Nos.1411 of 2024 (Swapna), 2011 of 2024 (Satish
Kumar), 2805 of 2024 (Chanheetha), and 1266 and 6243 of 2024 (Kalaivani).
Subsequently, the TNPSC passed final orders cancelling the provisional
selection of the petitioners. Those orders are under challenge in WP(MD)
Nos.27437 of 2025 (Swapna), 26701 of 2025 (Satish Kumar), 26490 of 2025
(Chanheetha), and 27149 of 2025 (Kalaivani). Apart from the above,
Swapna has challenged the order dated 03.03.2025 placing her under
suspension in WP(MD)No.13587 of 2025 and the order dated 14.11.2025
cancelling her appointment as Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes)
in WP(MD)No.33810 of 2025.
9.As the Vigilance Department entertained doubts regarding the
validity of the degrees obtained by the petitioners, it sought clarification
from MKU by communication dated 17.10.2023. By reply dated 09.11.2023,
21/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
MKU informed the Vigilance Department that the degrees obtained by the
petitioners were not valid. Challenging the said communication,
Chanheetha filed WP(MD)No.23151 of 2024. Subsequently, by proceedings
dated 16.10.2025, MKU cancelled the degree certificates of Chanheetha,
Satish Kumar and Kalaivani. Thereafter, the Vigilance Department filed an
objection report dated 31.10.2025 stating that the degree certificate obtained
by Swapna had also been issued in violation of the University Regulations
and required cancellation. Acting upon the materials furnished by the
Vigilance Department, MKU cancelled Swapna's degree on 27.11.2025.
These orders of cancellation have been challenged in WP(MD)No.23151 of
2024 (Chanheetha), WP(MD)No.32860 of 2025 (Kalaivani), WP(MD)No.
33121 of 2025 (Satish Kumar) and WP(MD)No.36348 of 2025 (Swapna).
10.Taking note of these subsequent developments, the Division
Bench, by order dated 05.06.2026, closed Cont.P.(MD) No.918 of 2021 while
directing the Vigilance Department to ensure that the investigation into the
issuance of fake degree certificates by MKU reaches its logical conclusion.
The Division Bench further directed the Universities concerned to extend
22/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
full cooperation to the investigation and to take appropriate steps to cancel
the degrees of candidates who had obtained such bogus degrees.
11.Since all these writ petitions arise out of the common issue relating
to the genuineness of the PSTM certificates and the consequential actions
taken by the authorities, they were heard together and are being disposed
of by this common order.
Petitioners' Case :-
12.The case of the petitioners, as advanced by the respective learned
Senior Counsel / Counsel, is summarised hereunder.
13.Chanheetha:-
(a) WP(MD)No.23151 of 2024: Challenge to the communication dated
09.11.2023 issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University informing the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai, that the
PSTM certificate issued to the petitioner was not valid.
23/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(i) The petitioner submitted that she had enrolled in the B.A. History
(Tamil Medium) course offered by the Directorate of Distance Education,
Madurai Kamaraj University, through Life Educational Trust, Theni, a
recognised study centre, on 30.06.2014 and was allotted an enrolment
number by the University. Since she was nursing her new-born child and
was simultaneously preparing for the Group-II Civil Services Examination,
2015, in which she had qualified for the main examination, she opted to
write all the papers in a single sitting. According to the petitioner, she
completed all the admission formalities by submitting the prescribed
applications and remitting the requisite fees through the study centre.
(ii) It was further submitted that the Directorate of Distance
Education had erroneously recorded her medium of instruction as English
instead of Tamil. To rectify the mistake, she paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- on
05.05.2017 towards change of medium. Likewise, though the University
initially issued a mark statement dated 05.04.2017 showing that she had not
appeared for three papers, the mistake was subsequently rectified and a
fresh mark statement was issued. According to the petitioner, these errors
24/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
committed by the University cannot lead to an inference that she had never
been admitted to the course.
(iii) The petitioner further contended that she had paid the
registration fee and tuition fee through the recognised study centre. Even
according to the official website of the University, the said study centre was
in arrears of a sum of Rs.1,01,50,162/- payable to the University as on June
2020. Since the University is the lawful custodian of all admission records,
she cannot be faulted for any discrepancy in the remittance of the
registration fee by the study centre.
(iv) It was lastly submitted that the University itself had issued the
petitioner the course completion certificate, mark statements, no due
certificate and degree certificate. Therefore, the subsequent communication
declaring the PSTM certificate to be invalid solely on the ground that the
admission fee paid by the petitioner was not reflected in the University
records is arbitrary and unsustainable.
25/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(b) WP(MD)No.2805 of 2024: Challenge to the show cause notice dated
05.01.2024 issued by the TNPSC proposing to reject the petitioner's candidature
under the Combined Civil Services-I Examination (Group-I Services), 2016-19
and her selection to the post of Deputy Collector.
(i) The petitioner submitted that the impugned show cause notice had
been issued mechanically solely on the basis of the communication dated
09.11.2023 received from the University stating that the PSTM certificate
issued to her was not valid. According to the petitioner, the TNPSC failed
to independently consider the other records issued by the University,
namely, the mark statements, course completion certificate and provisional
degree certificate.
(ii) It was further submitted that the petitioner had duly paid the
prescribed fees through the recognised study centre and therefore cannot
be penalised for the failure of the study centre to remit the same to the
University. It was also contended that the errors committed by the
University in recording her medium of instruction as English and in issuing
26/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
the original mark statement had subsequently been rectified and, therefore,
those mistakes cannot be relied upon to dispute the validity of the
petitioner's enrolment or her PSTM certificate.
(c) WP(MD)No.26490 of 2025: Challenge to the order dated 04.09.2025 passed
by the TNPSC rejecting the petitioner's candidature under the Combined Civil
Services-I Examination (Group-I Services), 2016-19 and cancelling her selection
to the post of Deputy Collector.
(i) The petitioner submitted that the impugned cancellation order has
been passed solely on the basis of the communication dated 09.11.2023
issued by the University, which itself is under challenge in WP(MD)No.
23151 of 2024. It was further contended that the order had been passed
without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity to submit her
explanation.
(ii) According to the petitioner, except for the allegation that the credit
of the registration fee was not traceable in the University records, there is
no material available against her. Consequently, the TNPSC has passed the
27/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
impugned order mechanically without independently satisfying itself
regarding the genuineness of the petitioner's claim.
(iii) The petitioner further submitted that the University had issued
her the admit card, hall tickets, course completion certificate, mark
statements and degree certificate, the validity of which has never been
disputed. Therefore, she cannot be made to suffer for the omission on the
part of the recognised study centre, acting as an agent of the University, in
remitting the registration fee to the Directorate of Distance Education.
(iv) Lastly, it was contended that the PSTM certificate merely certifies
the medium of instruction pursued by the petitioner and is issued
consequent upon the award of the degree. Since this Court has remitted the
issue relating to cancellation of the petitioner's degree to the University for
fresh consideration after obtaining her explanation, the degree continues to
subsist. Consequently, the impugned order cancelling her selection is liable
to be set aside.
28/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
14.Kalaivani:-
(a) WP(MD)Nos.1266 and 6243 of 2024: Challenge to the show cause notices
dated 05.01.2024 and 23.01.2024 issued by the TNPSC calling upon the petitioner
to explain as to why her candidature under the Combined Civil Services-I
Examination (Group-I Services), 2016-19 and 2020, respectively, and her
selection to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I) and Deputy
Collector should not be rejected.
(i) The petitioner submitted that she had completed the B.Com.
(Tamil Medium) course through the Directorate of Distance Education,
Madurai Kamaraj University. She had secured admission through the
recognised study centre, namely, AIECT Campus, Gudalur. According to
the petitioner, her admission was processed in October 2015 and she had
paid the registration fee of Rs.200/- to the study centre during the year
2015 itself. Therefore, if the study centre had remitted the registration fee to
the University only on 09.03.2018, the petitioner cannot be held responsible
for the same.
29/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(ii) It was further submitted that the University had allotted an
enrolment number to the petitioner and permitted her to appear for the
examinations. Having accepted her admission and allowed her to complete
the course, the University cannot subsequently contend that the admission
was not in accordance with the prescribed norms.
(iii) The petitioner further contended that she had made several
payments in connection with the course. If the University is unable to
account for one particular transaction, the petitioner cannot be faulted for
the same.
(iv) It was also contended that the Vigilance Department itself has
alleged that certain officials of the University had indulged in corrupt
practices and that the investigation in this regard is still in progress.
Therefore, the issuance of the impugned show cause notices, even before
the completion of the investigation, is premature and the TNPSC ought to
have awaited the outcome of the investigation before initiating any action
against the petitioner.
30/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(b) WP(MD)No.27149 of 2025: Challenge to the order dated 09.09.2025 passed
by the TNPSC rejecting the petitioner's candidature under the Combined Civil
Services-I Examination (Group-I Services), 2020 and cancelling her selection to
the post of Deputy Collector.
(i) The petitioner submitted that she had made all the requisite
payments through the recognised study centre and that the University had
issued all the relevant certificates in her favour. Therefore, merely because
certain payment records are not traceable in the University, she cannot be
held responsible for the same.
(ii) It was further submitted that the University had failed to collect
and maintain the records relating to students admitted through the
distance education programme from the recognised study centres. The
petitioner, having secured admission through an approved study centre,
cannot be made to suffer for the lapses either on the part of the study centre
or the University.
31/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(iii) Lastly, it was contended that the University had issued the
petitioner the no due certificate and hall tickets enabling her to appear for
the examinations. Having recognised her admission and permitted her to
complete the course, the University cannot now turn around and contend
that her admission itself was invalid.
15.K.C.Satish Kumar:-
(a) WP(MD)No.2011 of 2024: Challenge to the show cause notice dated
05.01.2024 issued by the TNPSC calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why
his candidature under the Combined Civil Services-I Examination (Group-I
Services), 2016-19 and his selection to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police
(Category-I) should not be rejected.
(i) The petitioner submitted that he had completed the B.A. History
(Tamil Medium) course through the Directorate of Distance Education,
Madurai Kamaraj University. On the strength of the PSTM certificate
issued by the University, he applied under the PSTM category in the
Combined Civil Services-I Examination (Group-I Services), 2016-19,
32/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
successfully cleared the examination and was appointed as Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Category-I).
(ii) It was further submitted that the impugned show cause notice had
been issued mechanically solely on the basis of the communication dated
09.11.2023 received from the University stating that the petitioner's PSTM
certificate was not valid. According to the petitioner, the University had
issued the mark statements, provisional degree certificate and course
completion certificate, all of which continue to remain valid. The petitioner
had also paid the requisite fees through the recognised study centre and,
therefore, cannot be penalised for the failure of the University to account
for the same.
(iii) Lastly, it was contended that the impugned show cause notice
was issued with a pre-determined mind and without affording the
petitioner a reasonable opportunity to effectively put forth his explanation.
33/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(b) WP(MD)No.26701 of 2025: Challenge to the order dated 04.09.2025 passed
by the TNPSC rejecting the petitioner's candidature under the Combined Civil
Services-I Examination (Group-I Services), 2016-19 and cancelling his selection
to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I).
(i) The petitioner submitted that the impugned order had been passed
without properly considering the explanation submitted by him and was
merely the culmination of a pre-determined process initiated by the
impugned show cause notice.
(ii) It was further submitted that the challenge to the show cause
notice is pending before this Court and, without awaiting the outcome of
the said proceedings, the TNPSC proceeded to pass the impugned order.
(iii) The petitioner further contended that he had produced the degree
certificate, consolidated mark statement and year-wise mark statements
issued by the University. Therefore, the TNPSC could not have ignored
those records and concluded that the petitioner's PSTM certificate was
invalid. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed
34/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
solely on the basis of the communication received from the University and
the registration of the criminal case against him.
(iv) Lastly, it was contended that the non-availability of the records
relating to the registration fee is attributable entirely to the University and
the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the failure of the University to
account for the same.
16.Swapna:-
(a) WP(MD)No.1411 of 2024: Challenge to the show cause notice dated
05.01.2024 issued by the TNPSC calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why
her candidature under the Combined Civil Services-I Examination (Group-I
Services), 2016-19 and her selection to the post of Assistant Commissioner
(Commercial Taxes) should not be rejected.
(i) The petitioner submitted that she had initially joined the B.C.A.
course at P.K.N. Arts and Science College, Thirumangalam, and
successfully completed the first year. According to the petitioner, on
account of the hormonal changes that she was undergoing and the
35/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
difficulties faced by her as a transgender person, she discontinued the
course and joined Mannar Thirumalai Naicker College, where she
completed the second year. Thereafter, she underwent sex reassignment
surgery and joined the B.A. (Tamil) course through the Directorate of
Distance Education, Madurai Kamaraj University.
(ii) It was further submitted that the officials of the University
informed her that, since she had already completed the first and second
years of the B.C.A. course in colleges affiliated to the University, she was
eligible to join the final year of the B.A. (Tamil) course. Accordingly, she
joined the final year and successfully cleared all the eighteen papers in a
single sitting. The University also issued a communication dated 06.03.2014
clarifying that she had been admitted as a "III Year Readmission - Different
Major". Therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted for having pursued the
course in the manner permitted by the University.
(iii) Lastly, it was contended that the impugned show cause notice
had been issued mechanically and without taking into consideration the
36/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
peculiar facts and circumstances under which the petitioner pursued her
education, including the challenges faced by her as a transgender person.
(b) WP(MD)No.27437 of 2025: Challenge to the order dated 04.09.2025 passed
by the TNPSC rejecting the petitioner's candidature under the Combined Civil
Services-I Examination (Group-I Services), 2016-19 and cancelling her
provisional selection to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes).
(i) The petitioner submitted that the provisional selection had been
cancelled solely on the basis of the communication dated 09.11.2023 issued
by the University and the registration of the criminal case against her.
(ii) It was further submitted that the University had issued the
petitioner the degree certificate, consolidated mark statement and year-
wise mark statements, and it is not the case of the University that any of
those documents were fabricated. Therefore, the TNPSC could not have
ignored those records and concluded that the petitioner's PSTM certificate
was invalid.
37/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(c) WP(MD)No.33810 of 2025: Challenge to G.O.(D) No.360, Commercial
Taxes and Registration (E1) Department, dated 14.11.2025, cancelling the
petitioner's appointment as Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) and
directing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to relieve her from the Tamil
Nadu Commercial Taxes Service forthwith.
(i) The petitioner submitted that this Court had granted an interim
order staying the operation of the order of the TNPSC cancelling her
provisional selection. Therefore, the consequential Government Order
cancelling her appointment is unsustainable. It was further contended that
the impugned order had been passed without affording her an opportunity
of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
(d) WP(MD)No.13587 of 2025: Challenge to G.O.(D) No.48, Commercial Taxes
and Registration (E1) Department, dated 03.03.2025 placing the petitioner under
suspension in public interest.
(i) The petitioner submitted that the order of suspension had been
passed solely on the basis of the registration of the criminal case against her
38/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
and without any other justifiable cause. It was further contended that, since
she intended to participate in the Group-I Examination pursuant to the
Notification dated 01.04.2025, the continuance of the suspension would
prevent her from obtaining the necessary No Objection Certificate from the
Government.
TNPSC's stand :-
17.The TNPSC has taken a common stand in all these writ petitions.
According to the Commission, pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court in WP(MD)No.8025 of 2020 and Cont.P(MD)No.918 of 2021, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai,
conducted an investigation into the issuance of bogus PSTM certificates
and requested the TNPSC to verify the genuineness of the certificates
produced by the petitioners, who had been provisionally selected under the
Combined Civil Services-I Examination (Group-I Services). Accordingly,
the TNPSC called for verification reports from the concerned authorities,
including the Madurai Kamaraj University.
39/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
18.Based on the materials received, the Commission issued show
cause notices to the petitioners and, after considering their explanations,
rejected their applications and cancelled their provisional selection to the
respective Group-I posts on the following grounds:
(i) The Madurai Kamaraj University, by its communication dated
09.11.2023, reported that the PSTM certificates produced by the petitioners
were not valid. Further, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department,
Madurai, had registered Crime No.12 of 2024 against the petitioners and
certain officials of the University in connection with the issuance of bogus
PSTM certificates.
(ii) Subsequently, the Syndicate of the Madurai Kamaraj University
also resolved to cancel the degrees issued to the petitioners.
(iii) In view of the above, the TNPSC concluded that the petitioners
had applied under the PSTM quota without possessing valid PSTM
certificates, thereby violating Clauses 12(L) and 13(h) of Notification No.1
of 2019 dated 01.01.2019 and Paragraphs 6(iv), 6(v), 19(b)(i), 20(d) and 22(I)
40/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(14) of the Instructions to the Candidates. According to the Commission, by
securing selection under the PSTM quota on the strength of invalid PSTM
certificates, the petitioners had encroached upon the rights of other eligible
candidates who had participated in the selection process.
MKU's stand :-
19.The common stand of the Madurai Kamaraj University in all these
writ petitions is summarised as under:
(i) Pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP(MD)No.8025 of 2020
and Cont.P(MD)No.918 of 2021, the DSP, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Madurai, has found that the petitioners got appointed to Group-I services
under the PSTM quota and requested the MKU to provide certain
documents, registers and details regarding the petitioners. The University
has cooperated with the investigation by the Vigilance Department and
provided the required details.
(ii) The DSP, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai requested the
University to clarify regarding the genuineness of the certificates issued to
41/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
the petitioners vide communication dated 17.10.2023. Pursuant to the same,
the University has verified the admission details of the petitioners and has
found that the alleged admission fees paid by the petitioners were not
available in the University and vide communication dated 09.11.2023 has
informed the Vigilance Department that the PSTM certificates issued in
favour of the petitioners are not valid.
(iii) The University has accorded prior sanction for the registration of
the criminal case against the University officials involved in the issue of
bogus PSTM certificates on 06.09.2024.
(iv) The TNPSC has requested the University to furnish copies of the
documents given to the Vigilance Department on 20.12.2024 and the
University has furnished the same on 30.12.2024.
(v) The TNPSC has requested the University to confirm the
genuineness of the certificates of the petitioners on 04.07.2025 and the
University has informed the TNPSC on 08.07.2025 that the decision
42/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
regarding the degrees awarded to the candidates has to be placed before
the Syndicate and that a decision regarding the same would be taken soon.
(vi) Considering the seriousness of the issue, the Convener
Committee of the University has appointed a four member committee for
conducting a study regarding the validity of the admission and issuance of
degree in respect of the above candidates. The four member committee has
filed a detailed report on 06.10.2025 that the admission and PSTM
certificates issued to one Chanheetha, K.C.Satish Kumar and Kalaivani is
not valid as the registration fees paid by them to the University could not
be validated.
(vii) There is no proof of payment of admission fees of the petitioners
and all of them have obtained degrees by writing all the papers in a single
sitting. There is no proof that they have undergone three years of study and
they have obtained fraudulent certificates by colluding with certain
University officials. Therefore, the matter was placed before the University
Syndicate and the degrees of Chanheetha, K.C.Satish Kumar and Kalaivani
43/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
were cancelled on 16.10.2025. Thereafter, the Vigilance Department has
filed an objection report on 31.10.2025 with regard to one Swapna that she
had joined her course in violation of University norms and her degree had
to be cancelled. Pursuant to the above report, it was verified and the
University Syndicate has resolved to cancel the degree of Swapna on
27.11.2025.
Vigilance Department's stand :-
20.The stand of the Vigilance Department, with regard to each
petitioner is summarised as under.
21.Chanheetha:-
(i) According to the Individual Student Details, the petitioner was
admitted on 30.06.2014 under Enrolment No.14CT500100388. The Vigilance
Department states that the petitioner's photograph was not uploaded along
with the application as required under the norms. It is further stated that
the Registration Fee of Rs.200/-, said to have been remitted through
Demand Draft No.0000032 dated 30.06.2014 drawn on HDFC Bank, is not
44/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
reflected in the records of the Finance and Accounts Section of the Madurai
Kamaraj University. The officials of HDFC Bank have also denied having
issued the said Demand Draft. As per the Prospectus of the University,
every application is required to be accompanied by the prescribed
Registration Fee and any application received without such fee is liable to
be rejected. The Vigilance Department, therefore, contends that the
petitioner's application itself was invalid.
(ii) The Vigilance Department further states that, as per the Individual
Student Details, the petitioner was admitted through the Life Educational
Trust Study Centre, Theni, on 30.06.2014 and was assigned Application No.
20553. However, according to the Applications Issue Register for the
academic year 2013-2014, the said application had already been despatched
to the Kalra Institute of Academic Technology and Management, Gurgaon.
Reliance is also placed on the statement of one Velankanni, Deputy
Registrar, General Section, Madurai Kamaraj University, who has stated
that the application was sent to the said institution on 30.10.2013 based on
the request made by the Study Centre on 23.10.2013.
45/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(iii) According to the Tabulated Marks Register, the petitioner had
originally been admitted to the English Medium course and not the Tamil
Medium course. The Vigilance Department states that the petitioner sought
and obtained a change of medium only on 05.05.2017, at the end of the
third year of the course, after appearing for the November 2016
examinations. It is contended that, under the Prospectus of the University,
a request for change of medium ought to have been made within three
months from the date of admission or at least one month prior to the
closure of the relevant Academic/Calendar Year admission. Therefore,
according to the Vigilance Department, the change of medium was effected
contrary to the prescribed norms of the University.
(iv) The Vigilance Department also relies upon the Tabulated Marks
Register to state that certain corrections were subsequently made in the
petitioner's Marks Statement. While the Marks Statement originally issued
showed that the petitioner had remained absent in three subjects, those
entries were later altered to indicate that she had appeared for the
examinations.
46/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(v) It is further stated that the petitioner passed all eighteen papers in
a single sitting in the November 2016 examinations conducted during the
third year of the course and was issued a Degree Certificate on that basis.
According to the Vigilance Department, neither the petitioner's
examination application nor the answer scripts relating to the eighteen
papers are available with the University.
(vi) In response to the allegation regarding payment of the
Registration Fee, the petitioner has stated that she paid a sum of Rs.200/- in
cash to the Life Educational Trust Study Centre and that the Study Centre,
in turn, obtained the Demand Draft and remitted the amount to the
University. The Vigilance Department, however, points out that the
petitioner has neither disclosed the identity of the person to whom the
payment was made nor produced any receipt evidencing such payment. It
is also stated that one Murali, Manager of the Study Centre, has given a
statement that Demand Draft No.0000032 had been received only from the
petitioner.
47/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
22.Kalaivani:-
(i) According to the Admission Card details, the petitioner was
admitted under Registration No.16AT501800495 and is shown to have paid
the Registration Fee of Rs.200/- on 31.12.2015 through Bank ID No.
85994778 of the State Bank of India, Palkalai Nagar Branch, Madurai. The
Vigilance Department, however, states that the said Registration Fee was
actually credited to the account of the Directorate of Distance Education,
Madurai Kamaraj University, only on 09.03.2018. It is further stated that the
aforesaid Bank ID came into use only during the year 2018. Therefore,
according to the Vigilance Department, the entry in the Admission Card
showing payment of the Registration Fee in the year 2015 is false. As per
the Prospectus of the University, every application is required to be
accompanied by the prescribed Registration Fee and any application
received without such fee is liable to be rejected. The Vigilance Department,
therefore, contends that the petitioner's application itself was invalid.
(ii) The Vigilance Department further states that, according to the
Individual Student Details, the petitioner secured admission through
48/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
AIECT, Gudalur. During the course of investigation, however, it was found
that the admission and tuition fees had actually been remitted through the
Sethupathi Institute of Higher Education, Coimbatore, which had
commenced functioning only on 18.12.2017. It is further stated that the
petitioner's Application No.00235 had already been despatched to the
Computer Training Centre, Amity Career Institute, Tambaram, Chennai, on
22.07.2013 as reflected in the Applications Issued Register for the academic
year 2013–2014. According to the Vigilance Department, the very same
application was subsequently used to project as if the petitioner had
secured admission through AIECT, Gudalur, on 31.12.2015. It is, therefore,
alleged that the application number was utilised in violation of the norms
of the University.
(iii) It is further stated that the petitioner cleared all seventeen papers
in a single sitting in the April 2018 examinations and was issued the Degree
Certificate and the PSTM Certificate on that basis.
49/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(iv) The Vigilance Department also states that the PSTM Certificate
produced by the petitioner before the TNPSC during certificate verification,
bearing the date 24.04.2019, differs from the PSTM Certificate issued by the
University on 29.07.2019. According to the University, the PSTM Certificate
produced by the petitioner before the TNPSC is a bogus certificate. It is
further stated that neither the petitioner's examination application nor the
answer scripts relating to the seventeen papers are available with the
University. The Vigilance Department also points out that, during the
course of investigation, the petitioner was unable to produce the PSTM
Certificate which she had relied upon during the TNPSC certificate
verification.
(v) The petitioner was examined on 22.08.2022 and, according to the
Vigilance Department, she gave a signed statement stating that she had
joined the B.Com. (Tamil Medium) course through the Sethupathi Institute
of Higher Studies, Coimbatore, and had passed all seventeen papers in a
single sitting in the year 2018. The Vigilance Department, however, states
50/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
that the petitioner has subsequently contradicted the said statement and
has now taken a stand that she studied the B.Com. (Tamil Medium) course
through AIECT Campus, Gudalur, after paying a fee of Rs.4,800/- to the
said institution. She has also stated that she appeared for the examinations
after obtaining Hall Tickets through the Sethupathi Institute of Higher
Studies, Coimbatore, in the year 2018.
23.K.C.Satish Kumar:-
(i) According to the Admission Card, the petitioner was admitted
under Registration No.16AT500100562. The records contain entries
indicating that the Registration Fee of Rs.200/- was paid through Demand
Draft No.878796 on 31.12.2015 and that the tuition fee of Rs.5,200/- was
remitted through Demand Draft No.93231970 on 09.07.2019 in the Finance
and Accounts Section of the Directorate of Distance Education, Madurai
Kamaraj University. The Vigilance Department, however, states that no
such amounts were actually credited to the Finance and Accounts Section.
As per the Prospectus of the University, every application is required to be
accompanied by the prescribed Registration Fee and any application
51/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
received without such fee is liable to be rejected. The Vigilance Department,
therefore, contends that the petitioner's application itself was invalid.
(ii) The Vigilance Department further states that, according to the
Admission Register and the Applications Issued Registers, the petitioner
secured admission through Tirunelveli Jayam Institute on 31.12.2015.
However, according to the statement of one Ramesh Babu, who runs the
said Study Centre, the petitioner was never admitted through his Study
Centre and had not appeared for any examination through the same. It is
further stated that Application No.00562, which had been despatched to
Annai Educational Trust, Saligramam, Chennai, on 23.07.2013 as reflected
in the Delivery Slip Book and Gate Pass, was subsequently utilised for the
petitioner's admission. According to the Vigilance Department, the claim
that the petitioner secured admission through the said Study Centre is
therefore false.
(iii) The Vigilance Department also relies upon the statement of one
Manikandan, who runs the ChelJan Study Centre, to state that the
52/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
petitioner was never admitted through his Study Centre and had not
appeared for the examinations as reflected in the Individual Student Details
(Admission Card). He has also stated that he had not remitted any amount
to the University on behalf of the petitioner. The Vigilance Department
further relies upon the statement of one Pandidurai, a friend of the
petitioner, who is stated to have admitted that he had handed over the
petitioner's application to one Jeyapandi, a temporary staff member of the
Madurai Kamaraj University, who processed the petitioner's application.
(iv) It is further stated that corrections were made in the petitioner's
Tabulated Marks Register by the Superintendent of Examinations,
following which the Consolidated Mark Statement and the Provisional
Certificate were issued to the petitioner.
(v) The Vigilance Department further states that the petitioner
appeared for all eighteen papers in a single sitting during the third year
examinations held in April 2018 and cleared the same. It is also stated that
the petitioner's examination application, the answer scripts relating to
53/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
fourteen subjects and the records pertaining to the issuance of the
Provisional Certificate are not available with the University.
24.Swapna:-
(i) According to the Admission Card, the petitioner secured
admission on 20.06.2012 under Registration No.12AT4090187. The
Admission Card contains entries showing that a sum of Rs.100/- was paid
towards the Registration Fee vide Cash Receipt No.9329 dated 26.04.2012
and that the tuition fee of Rs.1,650/- was remitted through the SBI Power
Jyoti Account on 04.08.2012. The Vigilance Department, however, states
that no record relating to the payment of the Registration Fee is available in
the Finance and Accounts Section of the Directorate of Distance Education,
Madurai Kamaraj University. As per the Prospectus of the University,
every application is required to be accompanied by the prescribed
Registration Fee and any application received without such fee is liable to
be rejected. The Vigilance Department, therefore, contends that the
petitioner's application itself was invalid.
54/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(ii) The Vigilance Department further states that the petitioner had
completed the first year of the B.C.A. (English Medium) course at PKN Arts
and Science College, Thirumangalam, and the second year at Mannar
Thirumalai Naicker College, Madurai. Thereafter, she was granted
exemption by the Madurai Kamaraj University and admitted directly into
the third year of the B.A. (Tamil) course. According to the Vigilance
Department, Paragraph 14 of the Prospectus of the University permits only
those candidates who had discontinued their studies in the first, second or
third year of the B.C.A. course to seek admission into the first year of the
same degree course. It is, therefore, alleged that the exemption granted to
the petitioner to secure direct admission into the third year of the B.A.
(Tamil) course was contrary to the norms of the University. It is further
stated that, while the petitioner claims to have secured admission on
20.06.2012, the order granting exemption was issued only on 14.08.2012,
that is, after the date of admission, which is also stated to be contrary to the
University norms.
55/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
(iii) The Vigilance Department also states that the petitioner secured
admission on 20.06.2012 using Application No.37235. Whereas, on
verification of the Centre records, it is found that Application No.37235 was
dispatched to the Admission Centre (Headquarters), Palkalai Nagar,
Madurai, only on 13.06.2014 (i.e.) 2 years after the admission of the
petitioner.
(iv) It is further stated that the petitioner passed all eighteen papers in
a single sitting in the November 2012 examinations, within six months of
securing admission to the course.
(v) According to the Vigilance Department, out of the eighteen foil
cards relating to the petitioner, only fourteen were available with the
University. It is further stated that the records relating to the issuance of the
Provisional Certificate, Course Completion Certificate and the registers
pertaining to the issuance of the Provisional Certificate and the PSTM
Certificate are not available with the Directorate of Distance Education.
56/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
According to the Vigilance Department, there are therefore no records
available to establish the issuance of the said certificates.
(vi) The Vigilance Department further states that the PSTM Certificate
produced by the petitioner during the TNPSC certificate verification
records that she studied the B.A. (Tamil) course during the calendar period
from January 2010 to December 2012. However, the petitioner had actually
pursued the course only for a period of about six months, namely from
20.06.2012 till November 2012. It is, therefore, alleged that the particulars
furnished in the PSTM Certificate are incorrect.
25.Insofar as WP(MD)No.13587 of 2025, filed by Swapna challenging
the order of suspension dated 03.03.2025, is concerned, the Commercial
Taxes and Registration Department and the Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes have taken a common stand that, in view of the registration of Crime
No.12 of 2024 against the petitioner and the serious allegations that she had
secured public employment on the strength of a bogus PSTM Certificate, it
was considered necessary, in public interest, to place her under suspension.
57/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
26.Insofar as WP(MD)No.33810 of 2025, filed by Swapna challenging
the cancellation of her appointment dated 14.11.2025 is concerned, the
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department and the Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes have taken a common stand that, it is only a
consequential order to the cancellation of the provisional selection of the
petitioner by the TNPSC.
27.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the materials placed on record.
28.All the writ petitioners were provisionally selected by the Tamil
Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment to Group-I Services
under the Persons Studied in Tamil Medium quota pursuant to Notification
No.1 of 2019 dated 01.01.2019. Under the said recruitment, 181 vacancies
were notified, of which 34 vacancies were earmarked for candidates
claiming reservation under the PSTM quota. Apart from the said
recruitment, Kalaivani was also provisionally selected under the PSTM
58/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
quota in the Group-I Recruitment Examination, 2020. At present,
Chanheetha and Kalaivani are serving as Deputy Collectors, while
K.C.Satish Kumar and Swapna are serving as Assistant Commissioners
(Commercial Taxes).
29.This Court had earlier granted interim orders staying the operation
of the orders passed by the TNPSC cancelling the provisional selection of
the petitioners. The interim protection was granted principally on the
ground that the degrees conferred upon the petitioners by the Madurai
Kamaraj University had not been cancelled and that the impugned orders
of the TNPSC did not disclose any independent reason for concluding that
the petitioners had not completed their respective courses in Tamil
Medium.
30.The petitioners had earlier filed WP(MD)Nos.1411 of 2024
(Swapna), 2011 of 2024 (K.C.Satish Kumar), 2805 of 2024 (Chanheetha), and
1266 and 6243 of 2024 (Kalaivani) challenging the show cause notices
issued by the TNPSC. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the
59/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
TNPSC passed final orders cancelling the provisional selection of the
petitioners. Those final orders are now under challenge in WP(MD)Nos.
27437 of 2025 (Swapna), 2670 of 2025 (K.C.Satish Kumar), 26490 of 2025
(Chanheetha) and 27149 of 2025 (Kalaivani). Consequently, the writ
petitions challenging the show cause notices have become infructuous.
Apart from the above, it is well settled that ordinarily no writ petition lies
against a show cause notice or charge memorandum, since the same does
not by itself affect any legal right or give rise to a cause of action. The
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 ], reiterates the said principle. Therefore,
the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices are liable to be
dismissed as not maintainable. As such, the principal question that
survives for consideration is the validity of the final orders passed by the
TNPSC cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioners.
31.Before examining the rival contentions, it is necessary to bear in
mind the scope of judicial review in the present batch of cases. This Court is
not called upon to determine the criminal culpability of the petitioners or to
60/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
record findings regarding the offences alleged in Crime No.12 of 2024.
Those issues fall within the domain of the investigating agency and the
competent criminal Court. The question that arises for consideration is
considerably narrower, namely, whether the respondents possessed
sufficient objective material to conclude that the petitioners were not
entitled to continue claiming the benefit of reservation under the PSTM
quota and whether the consequential administrative action suffers from
arbitrariness, perversity or violation of law.
32.Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WP(MD)No.8025
of 2020 and Cont.P(MD) No.918 of 2021, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department conducted a detailed investigation into the genuineness of the
PSTM Certificates produced by candidates selected under the PSTM quota.
According to the Vigilance Department, the investigation disclosed several
irregularities relating to the admission of the petitioners, the course of
study pursued by them and the issuance of the PSTM Certificates relied
upon by them. Though the specific allegations differ from petitioner to
petitioner, the materials collected during the investigation disclose the
61/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
following common features:
(1) All the petitioners obtained their degrees through the
Directorate of Distance Education, Madurai Kamaraj University,
by enrolling through different Study Centres. However, in each
case, discrepancies have been noticed between the Study Centre to
which the application was originally despatched by the University
and the Study Centre through which the petitioner is stated to
have secured admission.
(2) All the petitioners cleared all the papers relating to their
respective degree courses in a single sitting during the final year
of study.
(3) The records maintained by the Finance and Accounts
Section of the University do not disclose payment of the
Registration Fee at the time of admission. Further, in several cases,
the applications, answer scripts and other relevant academic
records are stated to be unavailable with the University.
(4) According to the Vigilance Department, though the
Registration Fee ought to have been paid at the time of admission,
62/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
the records indicate that the amount was actually remitted only
during the final year of study. At the same time, entries have been
made in the Admission Cards showing as though the Registration
Fee had been paid on the last day of the calendar year in which
admission was secured.
These are not isolated irregularities. Rather, they constitute interconnected
circumstances touching the very foundation of the petitioners' admission,
course of study and issuance of the PSTM Certificates.
33.None of the above circumstances, viewed individually, may by
itself conclude the issue. However, administrative authorities are not
required to examine each circumstance in isolation. When viewed
cumulatively, the materials disclose a consistent pattern casting serious
doubt upon the genuineness of the petitioners' admission, course of study
and the consequential issuance of the PSTM Certificates. At this stage, this
Court is not concerned with recording any finding on the criminal
culpability of the petitioners or on the correctness of each allegation made
by the Vigilance Department. Those are matters which would necessarily
63/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
depend upon the outcome of the investigation and any proceedings that
may follow. The limited question before this Court is whether the
respondents possessed sufficient objective material to initiate the impugned
administrative action. In the considered view of this Court, the materials
placed on record satisfy that requirement.
34.The principal contention advanced on behalf of all the petitioners
is that they had paid the prescribed fees to their respective Study Centres
and that, if the Study Centres failed to remit the same to the University, the
petitioners cannot be penalised. This submission cannot be accepted in the
facts of the present case. The allegation against the petitioners is not
confined merely to non-reflection of the registration fee in the accounts of
the University. The materials collected during investigation disclose several
other serious discrepancies, including recycled application numbers,
inconsistencies regarding the Study Centres through which admissions
were obtained, doubtful demand drafts, contradictory admission records,
unavailable examination records, missing answer scripts and, in certain
cases, alteration of academic records. It is the cumulative effect of these
64/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
circumstances, and not the isolated issue relating to payment of fees, that
has led the respondents to question the genuineness of the PSTM
certificates.
35.The petitioners have also repeatedly relied upon the fact that the
University itself issued hall tickets, mark statements, course completion
certificates, provisional certificates and degree certificates in their favour.
However, the mere issuance of those documents cannot, by itself, conclude
the issue once the University itself has, on verification of its records,
questioned the validity of the very process by which those certificates came
to be issued. In the present case, the challenge is not to the physical
existence of those certificates, but to the legality and genuineness of the
process that culminated in their issuance.
36.It is also relevant to note that this Court had granted interim
protection at an earlier stage principally because the degrees conferred
upon the petitioners had not then been cancelled by the Madurai Kamaraj
University. Consequently, the petitioners have continued in service
65/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. However, during the
pendency of these writ petitions, the Madurai Kamaraj University cancelled
the degrees issued in favour of Chanheetha, Kalaivani and K.C.Satish
Kumar on 16.10.2025 and Swapna on 27.11.2025. Those orders were
subsequently set aside by this Court in WP(MD)Nos.32126 of 2025
(Chanheetha), 32860 of 2025 (Kalaivani), 33121 of 2025 (Satish Kumar) and
36348 of 2025 (Swapna) solely on the ground that they had been passed
without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and the matters
were remitted for fresh consideration. The subsequent developments have,
therefore, materially altered the basis upon which the interim orders had
earlier been granted.
37.It is to be noted that the petitioners cannot derive any advantage
from the said order of remand. The aforesaid orders were confined to the
procedural infirmity arising from the denial of an opportunity of hearing,
and the merits of the allegations were expressly left open. In the present
batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have been afforded adequate
opportunity to place all their factual and legal submissions before this
66/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
Court. Once all the factual and legal submissions which the petitioners
contend ought to have been considered by the University have been placed
before this Court and examined on merits, no useful purpose would be
served by interfering solely on the earlier procedural infirmity.
38.The contention that the respondents ought to have deferred all
action until the completion of the criminal investigation is equally without
merit. Criminal proceedings and administrative action operate in distinct
fields. The pendency of one does not preclude the other from proceeding
independently. While criminal prosecution is intended to determine
criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt, the authorities responsible for
public employment are entitled to independently examine whether the
eligibility conditions governing public appointment continue to stand
satisfied. The mere pendency of the criminal proceedings therefore did not
prevent the TNPSC from examining the validity of the petitioners' claim
under the PSTM quota.
67/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
39.In this backdrop, the legality of the final orders passed by the
TNPSC cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioners falls for
consideration. The petitioners secured provisional selection under the
PSTM quota solely on the strength of the PSTM Certificates issued by the
Madurai Kamaraj University. The very University which issued those
certificates has subsequently informed the TNPSC that the certificates are
not genuine. That communication is also supported by the materials
collected by the Vigilance Department during the course of investigation,
which disclose several irregularities relating to the admission, course of
study and issuance of the certificates relied upon by the petitioners. In such
circumstances, the TNPSC cannot be faulted for examining the eligibility of
the petitioners to continue to claim the benefit of reservation under the
PSTM quota. In fact, once the very authority which issued the PSTM
certificates expressed serious reservations regarding their genuineness,
supported by the materials gathered during the Vigilance investigation, the
Commission would have failed to discharge its obligation to verify the
petitioners' eligibility had it failed to take those developments into account.
68/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
40.The selection of the petitioners was admittedly provisional. A
candidate claiming reservation necessarily carries the burden of
establishing continued eligibility to claim such reservation. Since the
selection was only provisional, the Commission retained the authority to
verify the petitioners' eligibility even after selection. The Notification dated
01.01.2019 issued by the TNPSC specifically provides that candidature is
liable to be rejected if, at any stage, it is found that any claim made by a
candidate regarding eligibility, educational qualification or entitlement to
reservation is incorrect. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“12.General Informations
... ... ...
L.Incomplete applications and applications containing wrong
/ incorrect claims or incorrect particulars relating to category of
reservation / other basic qualification / eligibility wise / age /
communal categories / educational qualification / PSTM / physical
qualification and other basic eligibility criteria will be summarily
rejected.
... ... ...
13.Other Important Instructions
... ... ...
g) Unless specific instruction is given, applicants are not
69/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
required to submit along with their application any certificates (in
support of their claims regarding age, educational qualifications,
physical qualification, community certificate and certificates
regarding their physical disability etc.,) which should be submitted
when called for by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
The applicants applying for the examination should ensure
that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission to
the Examination. Their admission at all the stages of
examination for which they are admitted by the Commission
viz. Preliminary Examination, Main Written Examination,
Certificate Verification and Oral Test will be purely
provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed
eligibility conditions. If, on verification at any time before or
after Preliminary Examination, Main Written Examination,
Certificate Verification and Oral Test, it is found that they
do not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, their
candidature for the recruitment will be rejected summarily
by the Commission.
h) If any of their claims is found to be incorrect, it will
lead to rejection of their candidature and suitable penal
action including debarment.”
Therefore, once credible materials were placed before the TNPSC casting
serious doubt upon the genuineness of the PSTM Certificates relied upon
70/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
by the petitioners, the Commission was fully justified in initiating
proceedings and passing appropriate orders after following the prescribed
procedure.
41.Although this Court is not recording any final finding regarding
fraud in the criminal law sense, it is nevertheless necessary to bear in mind
the well-settled principle Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice
never dwell together). The law does not permit a person to retain an
advantage obtained by practising fraud or misrepresentation. In Union of
India v. Prohlad Gupta [ 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1865 ], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reiterated that fraud vitiates every solemn act and that a person who
secures public employment by practising fraud cannot seek protection of
the law to retain such appointment, in the following terms:-
“14.The above discussion reiterates that fraud vitiates all
proceedings. Compassionate appointment is granted to those persons
whose families are left deeply troubled or destitute by the primary
breadwinner either having been incapacitated or having passed away. So
when persons seeking appointment on such ground attempt to falsely
establish their eligibility, as has been done in this case, such positions
71/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
cannot be allowed to be retained. So far as the submission of non-
compliance of the Rules is concerned, the judgment in Vishwanatha
Pillai (supra) answers the question. The respondent-employees in the
present case, having obtained their position by fraud, would not be
considered to be holding a post for the purpose of the protections under
the Constitution. We are supported in this conclusion by the
observations made in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal. In
paragraph 25 thereof it was observed—
“25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance
with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify
the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus — a foundation
being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done
wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead
bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent
court. In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum capere
potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating the law
cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to
inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Union of India v. Major
General Madan Lal Yadav [(1996) 4 SCC 127 : 1996 SCC (Cri)
592 : AIR 1996 SC 1340] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India
[(2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056].) Nor can a person
claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria
non oritur).
(Emphasis supplied)”
72/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
42.In Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira [ (2017) 8
SCC 670
], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that permitting an ineligible
person to secure public employment not only deprives a genuinely eligible
candidate of an opportunity but also strikes at the constitutional guarantee
of equality in public employment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further
emphasised that Courts must ensure that their jurisdiction is not utilised to
perpetuate an illegality or protect benefits obtained by practising fraud.
“56. Service under the Union and the States, or for that matter
under the instrumentalities of the State subserves a public purpose.
These services are instruments of governance. Where the State embarks
upon public employment, it is under the mandate of Articles 14 and 16
to follow the principle of equal opportunity. Affirmative action in our
Constitution is part of the quest for substantive equality. Available
resources and the opportunities provided in the form of public
employment are in contemporary times short of demands and needs.
Hence, the procedure for selection, and the prescription of eligibility
criteria has a significant public element in enabling the State to make a
choice amongst competing claims. The selection of ineligible persons
is a manifestation of a systemic failure and has a deleterious
effect on good governance. Firstly, selection of a person who is
not eligible allows someone who is ineligible to gain access to
73/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
scarce public resources. Secondly, the rights of eligible persons are
violated since a person who is not eligible for the post is selected.
Thirdly, an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing benefits upon
an imposter undeservingly. These effects upon good governance find a
similar echo when a person who does not belong to a reserved category
passes of as a member of that category and obtains admission to an
educational institution. Those for whom the Constitution has made
special provisions are as a result ousted when an imposter who does not
belong to a reserved category is selected. The fraud on the Constitution
precisely lies in this. Such a consequence must be avoided and stringent
steps be taken by the Court to ensure that unjust claims of imposters are
not protected in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142. The
nation cannot live on a lie. Courts play a vital institutional role in
preserving the rule of law. The judicial process should not be allowed to
be utilised to protect the unscrupulous and to preserve the benefits
which have accrued to an imposter on the specious plea of equity. ...”
43.For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no arbitrariness,
perversity or illegality in the decision of TNPSC in rejecting the petitioners'
candidatures and cancelling their provisional selection. As such,
WP(MD)Nos.2670, 26490, 27149 & 27437 of 2025 are liable to be dismissed.
74/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
44.This Court is also not inclined to interfere with the communication
dated 09.11.2023 issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University informing the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai,
that the PSTM Certificates relied upon by the petitioners are not genuine.
The said communication only constitutes one of the materials relied upon
by the authorities and does not, by itself, determine the rights of the
petitioner. Consequently, WP(MD)No.23151 of 2024 is liable to be
dismissed.
45.For the very same reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere
with G.O(D)No.48, Commercial Taxes and Registration (E1) Department
dated 03.03.2025 placing Swapna under suspension. Having regard to the
registration of the criminal case and the serious allegations touching the
very basis of her appointment to public service, the order of suspension
cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, WP(MD)No.13587 of
2025 also deserves to be dismissed.
75/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
46.This Court cannot also lose sight of the nature of the posts
presently held by the petitioners. They occupy responsible positions in the
civil services, where the discharge of public duties demands the highest
standards of integrity, transparency and ethical conduct. The legitimacy of
public administration rests upon the confidence of the public that
appointments to public office are made strictly in accordance with law and
not by resorting to fraud or manipulation. Where the very foundation of an
appointment stands seriously questioned on credible materials and the
authorities possess substantial material warranting further action, this
Court would be failing in its constitutional duty if it were to exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect
such appointments. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judicial
process cannot be permitted to protect or perpetuate an appointment
obtained on the strength of certificates whose genuineness stands seriously
questioned.
76/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
In the result, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. The interim orders
already granted stand vacated and all the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Internet : Yes 29.06.2026
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
gk
To
1.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Registrar,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai – 625 021.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
1/165G, Alagar Kovil Road,
Madurai – 625 002.
4.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai.
77/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
5.The Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
Chennai – 5.
6.The Joint Commissioner (ST),
Madurai Division,
Madurai.
7.The Deputy Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
78/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )
WP(MD)Nos.1266 of 2024, etc., batch
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP(MD)Nos.1266, 1411, 2011, 2805, 6243, 23151 of 2024;
13587, 26490, 26701, 27149, 27437, 33810 of 2025
29.06.2026
79/79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2026 03:34:36 pm )