TNPSC cannot insist on a fresh PSTM certificate where the submitted certificate is in the prescribed format.

The petitioner challenged, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the TNPSC Memorandum No. 1461/OTD-B2/2020 dated 25 August 2026, seeking its quashing and a direction to consider his candidature on the basis of the PSTM certificates already submitted by him.

The petitioner contended that, despite having uploaded a PSTM certificate in the prescribed format in 2024, the Commission was requiring him to produce a fresh certificate.

TNPSC clarified that it had not sought a fresh certificate, but only the certificate in the prescribed format; it further stated that the certificate annexed at page 60 of the petitioner’s typed set appeared to be in the prescribed format, subject to scrutiny.

The petitioner also stated that he had sent the original certificates to the Commission by post and produced the postal receipt, although TNPSC could not confirm their receipt or availability.

1. Whether TNPSC’s communication dated 25 August 2026 unlawfully required the petitioner to produce a fresh PSTM certificate despite his alleged submission of a certificate in the prescribed format.

2. Whether the petitioner’s candidature could be considered on the basis of the PSTM certificate already submitted, subject to verification and scrutiny by TNPSC.

3. Whether the original certificates allegedly sent to TNPSC should be returned to the petitioner if they were available with the Commission.

The petition was considered under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, including the power to issue certiorari and mandamus.

The applicable administrative principle was that a candidate must furnish the required certificate in the prescribed format, while the recruiting authority is entitled to scrutinise and verify the certificate before proceeding with selection.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order; the Court principally acted on the clarification and undertaking made by TNPSC before it.

The Court found that the dispute arose from a misunderstanding: the petitioner believed that TNPSC was demanding a fresh PSTM certificate, whereas TNPSC clarified that it required only a certificate in the prescribed format.

Since the certificate produced in the typed set appeared to conform to the prescribed format, TNPSC agreed to scrutinise it and proceed with the selection process accordingly.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had been permitted to participate in the interview.

As to the originals allegedly sent by post, TNPSC could not confirm their receipt but undertook to return them if they were available with the Commission.

On recording these submissions, the Court considered no further adjudication necessary.

If the petitioner approached TNPSC and the original documents were available with the Commission, TNPSC was directed to return them to him.

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