C.Chandrakala vs The State of Tamil Nadu

WP No. 9845 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 9845 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA010557122023}
and
WP No.17012 of 2024 and
WMP No. 9918 and 9921 of 2023,
WMP Nos.18749 and 18750 of 2024
W.P.No.9845 of 2023
C.Chandrakala
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner / Director
School Education Department,
DPI Campus, College Road
Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006
3. The Commissioner
Most Backward Classes and
Denotified Communities Welfare Department,
Chennai 600 005
4. The Teachers Recruitment Board
Rep by its Member Secretary
DPI Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006
5. M. Balachandar
..Respondents
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
WP No. 17012 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010996572024}
R.Gnanasekaran
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep By The Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education,
Secretariat Chennai-09.
2. The Commissioner /Director
School Education Department, DPI Campus
College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 06.
3. The Teachers Recruitment Board
Rep By its Member Secretary
DPI Campus College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai- 06.
4. M.Balachandar
..Respondents
Prayer in W.P.No.9845 of 2023: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the impugned provisional selection list dated 25.10.2022 issued by
the 4th respondent in respect of P G Assistants in Geography and quash the
same, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to restore the appointment of
the petitioner as PG Assistant Geography in the 2nd Respondent School
Education Department as per the 1st selection and appointment dated
13.10.2022.
Prayer in W.P.No.17012 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, callingalling
for the records of the impugned provisional selection list dated 25.10.2022
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of PG Assistants in Geography and
quash the same, consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint the
Petitioner as PG Assistant in Geography as per the 2nd Selection dated
13.10.2022.
For Petitioners:
(in both W.Ps)
Mr.K.Balu
For R1 to R3:
(in both W.Ps)
Mr.J.Pradeep
Government Advocate
Mr. C.Kathiravanan,
Standing counsel for TRB
For R4:
(in both W.Ps)
COMMON ORDER
The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for the
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
th
impugned provisional selection list dated 25.10.2022 issued by the 4
respondent in respect of PG Assistants in Geography.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
Chandrakala and Gnanasekaran belong to the MBC category. Apart from these
petitioners, one Sakthivel also comes under the MBC category. According to
the cut-off marks, the GT cut-off mark is 85. In respect of the cut-off marks, the
District Revenue Officer has given written instructions to the standing counsel
of the TRB, the scanned image of which is depicted herein below:
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the GT cut-off
mark is 85, whereas Sakthivel secured 87 marks. Therefore, according to the
ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and
Others vs. K.Shobana and Others reported in (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases
686 , he must have been placed under the GT category. Though the respondents
had initially issued a provisional selection list on 13.10.2022, in which
Sakthivel was rightly placed under GT, and the petitioners Chandrakala and
Gnanasekaran were placed under the MBC category, and were declared as
eligible, without any rhyme or reason, the respondents subsequently revised the
list through the impugned provisional selection list dated 25.10.2022, in which
Sakthivel and Chandrakala were placed under the MBC category, instead of
retaining him in the GT. As a result of which, Gnanasekaran was not selected.
Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the selection list is
contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, prayed to
interfere with the provisional selection list dated 25.10.2022.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that since this
th
being a writ petition filed in a representative capacity, the 4 respondent who is
one of the selectees, was included and a paper publication was also effected to
satisfy the Rule 2A of the Writ Rules and would contend that they have no
th
grievance about the selection of the 4 respondent. Hence, he prayed to order
the writ petition.
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
5. Per contra, the said contention was totally objected to by the learned
standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, and he would contend that
the impugned selection list is only a provisional list, and the final provisional
list would be published later. Only because of the pendency of the instant writ
petition, they are not in a position to release the final selection list. Apart from
that, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel that the present
selection list is based upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Shobana case (cited supra). He would further contend that according to Section
27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act,
whenever there are any backlog vacancies, it has to be filled in first and in this
case, the backlog vacancy being MBC, Sakthivel was placed under the MBC
roster first. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance in respect of
such selection, and furthermore, it was contended that since Sakthivel has not
challenged such a placement, the petitioners can have no grievances.
6. In addition to the above-said submissions, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Balachandran submitted that he is in no way
concerned with the issue raised in the present writ petition, as he is under the SC
roster, whereas the petitioners raised grievances only with respect to the MBC
roster.
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
7. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
8. The short point to be considered is whether the impugned provisional
selection list requires any modification. The marks obtained by the petitioners
and one Sakthivel are not in dispute. However, the placement of them alone is
in dispute. According to the first provisional selection list dated 13.10.2022,
Sakthivel, who secured 87 marks, was placed under the GT turn, and the
petitioners Chandrakala and Gnanasekaran were placed under the MBC turn.
However, in the subsequent impugned provisional selection list, Sakthivel was
placed under the MBC roster and Chandrakala was placed in the MBC category,
and on account of placing Sakthivel in MBC roster, Gnanasekaran was pushed
out of the list and not selected.
9. Now, the ground urged by the learned counsel for the respondents is
that since Sakthivel was selected under the backlog vacancy of MBC, he must
be placed only under the relevant communal roster. But, this position was
clarified and settled in the Shobana case (cited supra). Wherein it was held that
simply because there is a reference “first” in Section 27(f), that does not mean
that the persons who are selected under the backlog vacancy have to be fitted in
the respective communal roster. It is relevant to mention that Section 27(f) only
deals with the reservation of appointment and it does not speak about seniority.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that when it comes to seniority, the
rank obtained in the selection list alone is the criteria, and according to that,
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
anyone who secured higher marks and comes with GT Turn must be first fitted
in the the General Turn.
10. In the case in hand, Chandrakala has obtained 85 marks, whereas
Sakthivel has secured 87 marks. Therefore, this Court is of the indubitable
opinion that Sakthivel ought to have been fitted in GT Turn instead of
MBC/DNC category. Therefore, this Court find justification to interfere with
the impugned revised provisional selection list dated 25.10.2022 as far as to the
petitioners are concerned. Therefore, the same is set aside and quashed to the
extent of these petitioners. Consequentially, the respondents are directed to
select both the petitioners under the MBC Turn if they otherwise qualified. The
above exercise is directed to be completed within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions stand allowed as indicated above.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
SHL
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
To:
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of School Education
Secretariat Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner / Director
School Education Department,
DPI Campus, College Road
Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006
3. The Commissioner
Most Backward Classes and
Denotified Communities Welfare Department,
Chennai 600 005
4. The Teachers Recruitment Board
Rep by its Member Secretary
DPI Campus, College Road,
Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )

WP No. 9845 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
SHL
WP No. 9845 of 2023 and
17012 of 2024 and
WMP No. 9918 and 9921 of 2023,
WMP Nos.18749 and 18750 of 2024
27-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:58:15 pm )