Candidates producing alternative proof of local-language proficiency must be permitted to undergo the language proficiency test.

The appellant applied for the post of Local Bank Officer for 2025–2026 pursuant to the Indian Overseas Bank’s recruitment notification dated 12 May 2025.

Although the appellant had studied Malayalam during her school education, she claimed proficiency in Tamil, the local language of Tamil Nadu, and had passed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission’s Second Class Language Test.

In her application, she answered “Yes” to the question whether she possessed a 10th or 12th standard marksheet/certificate evidencing study of the official local language.

The Bank consequently did not sponsor her for the LPT and rejected her candidature. Her writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the appellant’s answer in the application form and production of the TNPSC Tamil Language Test certificate justified rejection of her candidature without permitting her to undergo the LPT.

Whether the recruitment notification required a candidate who had not produced a 10th or 12th standard certificate showing study of Tamil, but produced other proof of Tamil proficiency, to undergo the LPT.

The notification required proficiency—reading, writing and speaking—in the local language of the State applied for; candidates shortlisted for interview had to qualify in the LPT, failing which they could not proceed further.

It exempted only those candidates who produced a 10th or 12th standard marksheet/certificate evidencing study of the specified local language.

The Court interpreted the relevant application-form column as containing two distinct requirements: possession of a 10th or 12th standard marksheet and possession of a certificate evidencing study of the official local language.

The Court further treated the TNPSC certificate showing that the appellant had passed the Tamil Language Test as relevant evidence of her language proficiency, though not as a substitute for the Bank’s LPT.

The Court held that the notification’s substantive requirement was proficiency in Tamil, while the school marksheet/certificate operated only as a basis for exemption from the LPT.

The appellant’s TNPSC certificate established that she had studied and acquired proficiency in Tamil, and her application-form answer could not be treated as false merely because the supporting document was not a 10th or 12th standard certificate.

Since she did not possess the specified school certificate evidencing study of Tamil, the proper course was to require her to undergo the LPT rather than reject her candidature outright.

The Selection Committee therefore misinterpreted both the notification and the relevant application-form column by denying her the opportunity to take the test.

The first respondent—Indian Overseas Bank—was directed to make necessary arrangements and permit the appellant to undergo the LPT.

The Bank was thereafter directed to declare the result and, if the appellant qualified in the test, select and appoint her as Local Bank Officer.

The entire exercise was to be completed within six weeks from receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.