Tamil-medium reservation requires study from Class 1 through qualifying degree; Madras HC orders fresh selection list without disturbing existing appointments

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued Notification No.34 of 2019 for 11 posts of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce, including one GT (PSTM) and one BC (PSTM) vacancy. The petitioner, belonging to the BC category, participated in the examination, certificate verification and counselling, secured 313 marks, and was placed first in the reserve lists for both the GT (PSTM) and BC (PSTM) categories. However, M. Balasubramani and G. Esther Rani, who secured 357 and 352.25 marks respectively, were selected against the two PSTM vacancies

The petitioner contended that the selected candidates possessed only degree-level PSTM certificates and had not established that they had studied in Tamil Medium from the first standard up to the prescribed degree qualification, as required under G. Sakthi Rao v. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu. The respondents maintained that the said decision applied only to a different notification and that the selected candidates had already been appointed under G.O. (3D) No.2 dated 09.06.2022

During the proceedings, the Court directed the TNPSC to disclose whether the candidates had submitted PSTM certificates covering their education from the first standard onwards. The TNPSC’s positional note showed that, except for the petitioner, the other candidates had submitted only degree-level PSTM certificates

Whether the principles laid down in G. Sakthi Rao v. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, concerning proof of Tamil-medium education from the first standard up to the prescribed qualification, applied to the recruitment under Notification No.34 of 2019.

Whether candidates claiming PSTM reservation could be treated as eligible merely on the basis of degree-level PSTM certificates, without verification of their earlier education from the first standard onwards.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential appointment or other relief without disturbing the appointments already granted to the selected candidates.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the statutory scheme governing reservation for persons who studied in Tamil Medium under the Tamil Nadu PSTM legislation, including the original enactment referred to as Act 40 of 2010 and the amending Act 35 of 2020.

It relied on G. Sakthi Rao v. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and held that eligibility for PSTM preference requires study in Tamil Medium from the elementary level through, and including, the prescribed qualifying course.

The Court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision dated 31.07.2023 in SLP (Civil) Nos.3364 and 3367 of 2022, which held that Act 35 of 2020 was clarificatory and intended to ensure that only candidates who had pursued their education in Tamil Medium could claim the reserved benefit.

It also followed The Chairman, TNPSC v. A. Anbalagan, which applied the clarified rule retrospectively to earlier recruitments and permitted accommodation of an eligible candidate in a supernumerary post without disturbing existing appointments.

The Court rejected the TNPSC’s contention that G. Sakthi Rao was confined to Notification No.1 of 2020. Since Act 35 of 2020 was clarificatory and curative, the requirement of Tamil-medium study from the first standard through the prescribed qualification applied to the present recruitment as well

The positional note established that the selected candidates had produced only degree-level PSTM certificates, whereas the petitioner had certificates covering his education from the first standard up to the qualifying degree

Accordingly, the selection had proceeded on the basis of the earlier, narrower understanding that degree-level Tamil-medium study was sufficient, and was therefore inconsistent with the settled PSTM eligibility principle

Nevertheless, the Court declined to invalidate or disturb the appointments of Balasubramani and Esther Rani because they were not parties to the proceedings, had been appointed under the then-prevailing policy, and had already served for a substantial period

Following A. Anbalagan, the Court considered that the appropriate relief was to prepare a fresh PSTM merit list and, if the petitioner qualified, accommodate him in a supernumerary or existing post with protected seniority but without retrospective financial benefits

If the petitioner fell within the revised PSTM merit list, subject to proof of his claim, he was to be accommodated in a supernumerary post or against an existing vacancy

He would receive continuity of service from the date on which the last candidate selected under Notification No.34 of 2019 joined, and would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list with consequential seniority and incrementary benefits, but without financial benefits for the earlier period

The existing appointments and continuance of Balasubramani and Esther Rani were expressly protected

The exercise was directed to be completed within four weeks, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs